3 New Studies Show Atlantic Tipping Point Unrealistic…”Muted Response”…”Changes To Be Viewed With Caution”

From the NoTricksZone

By P Gosselin 


Yet another 3 recent journal publications show there’s no Atlantic tipping point taking place. 

Two days ago we reported on the most recent video by the German Klimaschau here, which reported there are a number of new published papers showing that the AMOC is not weakening, thus contradicting what some climate alarmists claim. These alarmists often rely on cherrypicked data and hope the media will do the rest.

Another paper featured by the video is one that appeared in the journal Geophysical Research Letters: “On Timescales and Reversibility of the Ocean’s Response to Enhanced Greenland Ice Sheet Melting in Comprehensive Climate Models,” authored by Martin et al (2022). In this publication the team of authors stated:

Even significantly enhanced FW (freshwater) input from GrIS at a magnitude to be roughly expected by the end of the 21st century is not necessarily a tipping point in climate change—AMOC weakening and associated surface cooling reverse to control state within a couple of decades after ceasing of the perturbation, which is about the timescale of their initial response to the FW release.”

In fact, many scientists have doubts there will be ice melts of the magnitudes projected by alarmist scientists, let alone a tipping if they did indeed occur.

Tipping points to be viewed with caution

Another paper just appeared in the journal Nature Climate Change titled “Freshwater forcing of the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation revisited” by Feng He and Peter U. Clark (2022) . They found there has been no weakening of the AMOC and that no tipping point is in sight. The authors found “a muted AMOC response to freshwater forcing in the early-to-middle Holocene ~11,700–6,000 years ago”.

The magnitude of freshwater melt over the rest of the current century is projected to be only a tiny fraction of what occurred 12,000 years ago, and so no tipping point can be realistically expected by 2100. No wonder the authors added: “Any simulated AMOC changes from freshwater forcing should be viewed with caution.”

New study: warmer Tibetan Plateau enhances the AMOC

Finally, in yet another new publication by Wen et al (2022), “Possible Thermal Effect of Tibetan Plateau on the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation“, the authors found that warming of the Tibetan Plateau “can immediately generate anticyclone in the subtropical North Atlantic, leading to more water vapor transporting from the North Atlantic to eastern tropical Pacific. This results in less precipitation over the North Atlantic and increases the sea surface salinity. The latter enhances the deep-water formation in the subpolar North Atlantic and thus the AMOC.”

All these findings, and those we reported on 2 days ago, are highly inconvenient for the purveyors of panic climate science. The real science tells that the media, governments and alarmist “climate scientists” are making mountains of molehills. Their target obviously is to spread panic of something that isn’t real.

Climate change is not a crisis today. It’s nature as usual.

4.7 18 votes
Article Rating
42 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
fretslider
June 2, 2022 6:17 am

Some have mental health tipping points…

“We cannot adapt our way out of climate crisis, warns leading scientist
Katharine Hayhoe says the world is heading for dangers people have not seen in 10,000 years of civilisation”

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/jun/01/we-cannot-adapt-our-way-out-of-climate-crisis-warns-leading-scientist

Hey ho it’s far worse than you thought

Matt Kiro
Reply to  fretslider
June 2, 2022 6:45 am

Since there are no mile high ice sheets covering the northern hemisphere, I don’t see any giant melting apocalypse. But maybe she means we are heading for another ice age? No one has seen those conditions for that long.

DaveinCalgary
Reply to  fretslider
June 2, 2022 7:21 am

From the Guardian headline: “ …warns leading scientist,”

How does one become a “leading” scientist? What is the difference between that and a bog standard scientist?

The Guardian writers and staff are so clueless and stupid, they have no idea how easy it is for the rest of us to spot them trying to argue from authority by trying to juice up her credentials. They are simply not smart enough to understand how thinking people notice how transparent their attempts are to insulate Kayhoes opinion from criticism by suggesting she is not just a scientist, but a leading scientist.

They speak with the grammar of tyranny at all times.

fretslider
Reply to  DaveinCalgary
June 2, 2022 8:23 am

They don’t think, they believe.

Richard Page
Reply to  DaveinCalgary
June 2, 2022 9:36 am

Leading means that she’s pushing her way to the front, elbowing more credible scientists out of her way.

John
Reply to  DaveinCalgary
June 2, 2022 9:54 am

Leading means she’s a pied piper, leading the children astray!

saveenergy
Reply to  John
June 2, 2022 3:10 pm

“a pied piper”
I think you mean a paid piper !!

Gerry, England
Reply to  DaveinCalgary
June 2, 2022 10:55 am

Nobody reads the Guardian – well, I could stop there given circulation has dropped such that without Bill Gates propping them up they would be heading out of existence – to be informed. As Mark Twain said that reading the press makes you misinformed, but with the Guardian people read it to confirm their own ignorant views.

Old Man Winter
Reply to  DaveinCalgary
June 2, 2022 11:51 am

Katharine Hayhoe- leading “green” scientist

scum.jpg
Duane
Reply to  fretslider
June 2, 2022 7:26 am

So humans and our prehistoric anthropoid ancestors, with the most rudimentary of possible coping skills, managed to survive 24 complete major glaciation/interglacial cycles over the past 2.6 million years of the Quaternary … yet humans today with all our technology supposedly cannot survive a warming claimed of another 0.5 deg C by 2100?

That simply sounds ridiculous, on its face.

Last edited 1 month ago by Duane
Ron Long
Reply to  Duane
June 2, 2022 10:14 am

Duane, ouch! You simply cannot blurt out the truth like that the woke people might panic at this type of reality check.

Dave Fair
Reply to  Ron Long
June 2, 2022 10:57 am

Its like Dr. Roger Pielke, Jr.’s colleges telling him that it was OK to publish studies showing no increasing frequency or intensity of extreme weather events in obscure professional journals, but it hurt the Narrative to publish it where regular people could understand those facts. Its hard to control people’s thinking if you can’t control access to facts such that your made-up facts can’t be challenged. “He who controls the past ….”

Old Man Winter
Reply to  Duane
June 2, 2022 12:06 pm

You nailed it!

homerun.jpg
Doug S
Reply to  fretslider
June 2, 2022 7:31 am

fretslider, I realize you’re having a bit of fun with your first sentence above but for me it hits at the heart of this alarmism over climate. I watched a very interesting interview yesterday where “Cluster B” personality disorders we discussed. I wasn’t aware of this condition but apparently it’s becoming more and more common. I recommend people here look it up, it may help explain the mental health issues people are suffering with their climate phobias.

fretslider
Reply to  Doug S
June 2, 2022 8:19 am

Doug, as per my first sentence: climate anxiety – a man made mental disorder based on false beliefs

Last edited 1 month ago by fretslider
marlene
Reply to  fretslider
June 2, 2022 9:29 am

But WHO’s IPCC is blaming all this mental dysfunction & suicides on the false dangers of “climate change” itself, instead of the fear they themselves instill through their false claims of climate change doom.

Dave Fair
Reply to  fretslider
June 2, 2022 10:45 am

Hey, hey, ho, ho real science just gotta go!

David Noel Chorley
Reply to  fretslider
June 4, 2022 2:07 pm

Katherine Hayhoe is a political scientist not a hard scientist.

garboard
June 2, 2022 6:48 am

of course not . none of it was based on anything empirical and whatever empirical data there was has been ignored or disparaged . it’s only in the computer models . just like the sea level rise folk disparaged long time expert nils morner for doing field research and sticking with empirical data . he went from ipcc expert to outcast because of it . all those older real scientists are dieing and the new generation are glued to their screens .

Duane
June 2, 2022 7:22 am

The warmunists are not big on math, or engineering, or chemistry or science of any kind.

Even if every cubic meter of ice on the planet melted instantaneously and ran off into the ocean instead of being infiltrated onto land (soils and rock) – which is of course impossible – it would only amount to 2% of the total mass of all water on the planet, the other 98% being salt water. Indeed, it’s very likely that a large proportion of that supposed instantaneous ice melt would indeed be infiltrated into the crust. So maybe a 1% change in oceanic salinity might result.

A 1% change in ocean salinity resulting from such an impossible event would have only the most minimal, if any whatsoever, effect on ocean currents.

What drives ocean currents, as any non-ignorant scientist must know, is a combination of energy differences between the poles and the tropics, and the shape of land masses. The single biggest effect on ocean currents and climate resulted from the closing of the Isthmus of Panama roughly 3 million years ago … and the apparent result was the “ice age” of the quaternary period about 2.6 MYA, though it took several hundred thousand years to reorient the ocean currents to create what is now the Gulf Stream. Nothing instantaneous about any of that.

Call me a skeptic
Reply to  Duane
June 2, 2022 7:48 am

But, but, but ….what about thunderstorm Sarah or gale force wind Wendy which we are sure to have this summer. Are we all forgetting about those exestential threats to our way of life? What will the likes or John Kerry and Al Gore do now? Maybe focus on the little green men from space threat. Send money now before it’s too late.

fretslider
Reply to  Call me a skeptic
June 2, 2022 8:28 am

Don’t forget gentle breeze Brian

Streetcred
Reply to  fretslider
June 2, 2022 1:48 pm

Or flatulent Joe ?

Jamaica
Reply to  Duane
June 2, 2022 5:21 pm

Next great event is the closing of the Drake Passage

Dave Fair
Reply to  Bjarne Bisballe
June 2, 2022 11:51 am

Rahmstorf’s use of ocean sediments as paleo proxies reminds me of Mann’s use of tree ring proxies (especially stripbark pines). Rahmstorf relying on unvalidated models is also reminiscent of Mann’s dodges. His responses to the study rely on speculation and Precautionary Principle hysteria, plus blaming others for questionable data he used. His relying on unvalidated models to get his 5-10% “probabilities” is laughable.

While not important to me, the study didn’t describe how they obtained Norwegian Gulf Stream data from 1900 to 1994, before the 1995 introduction of measurement buoys. Otherwise the study seems reasonable on its face and is non-alarmist enough to get its authors canceled in CliSciFi Land. No doubt Rahmstorf will lead the charge.

Reply to  Bjarne Bisballe
June 2, 2022 1:32 pm

A fresh one from Norway”
Not fresh. WUWT echoed NoTricksZone getting this paper completely wrong just fiver days ago.

ResourceGuy
June 2, 2022 9:15 am

Mann will have to search elsewhere for tipping and doom.

marlene
June 2, 2022 9:24 am

A quote from WHO’s email today: “Why mental health is a priority for action on climate change, a new WHO policy brief, highlights five important approaches for governments to address the mental health impacts of climate change.  The findings concur with a recent report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), published in February this year. The IPPC revealed that rapidly increasing climate change poses a rising threat to mental health and psychosocial well-being; from emotional distress to anxiety, depression, grief, and suicidal behavior” If this were true, which it obviously IS NOT, it’s because the fear instilled by false statements of doom as a result of a non-existent global warming. Just an excuse to include mental health in their global control plan. 

Dave Fair
Reply to  marlene
June 2, 2022 11:55 am

Intersectionality gets more people on the bandwagon. Its reminiscent of social justice linking up with climate change to get governmental and private mitigation dollars.

H B
Reply to  marlene
June 3, 2022 3:01 pm

More like the effects of the persistent fear mongering

The IPPC revealed that rapidly increasing climate change poses a rising threat to mental health and psychosocial well-being; from emotional distress to anxiety, depression, grief, and suicidal behavior”

ResourceGuy
June 2, 2022 10:12 am

I guess the doomsters will need to hunt for more unknown regions lacking much data like deep oceans and polar waters. Maybe a grid search for the widest data gaps will help.

Andy Pattullo
June 2, 2022 11:54 am

In contrast to the article I think there is a tipping point coming. A political and policy tipping point. Every month more evidence appears from the scientific literature calling into question the entire CAGW premise and associated policy agenda. That evidence arrives ins a field of study where all the prevalent assumptions were never supported by objective observations.

Every week the climate refuses to disclose the promised emergency, catastrophe, Armageddon or whatever the flavour of the day is.

The World Economic Forum is looking more like a bunch of entitled, wealthy neophytes who can’t read a thermometer or boil water for tea but think it their destiny to tell the rest of us how to live while exempting themselves from any hint of modesty or frugality. The public are starting to catch on.

The politicians who have foolishly jumped on the net zero, agenda 21, green energy, sustainable development, ESG and other bandwagons of futility are now facing real problems like skyrocketing inflation, energy insecurity, industrial/economic system dysfunction and growing risk of massive famine – all their own doing. Even unelected dictators know this is not a good look for those who govern.

This is when the politicians do that clever little trick of changing course 180 degrees in order to stay relevant while blaming those foolish scientific fraudsters for misinforming their well-considered policy decisions. Whiplash won’t adequately describe what might be coming next.

H B
Reply to  Andy Pattullo
June 3, 2022 3:04 pm

Give this 100 up votes

June 2, 2022 1:00 pm

The “tipping point” is an infantile oversimplification of how chaotic nonlinear dynamics work in the real world. Popular among dystopian alarmists.

June 2, 2022 1:43 pm

A bizarre collection of papers from NoTricksZone, as usual. The first is entirely computer simulation. The second is about, “in the early-to-middle Holocene ~11,700–6,000 years ago. “. The third is again a computer simulation, showing that warming of the Tibetan Plateau could strengthen the AMOC. None of them ” show there’s no Atlantic tipping point taking place”. They have no current observations at all to that effect.

Andrew Wilkins
Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 2, 2022 3:54 pm

You appear very disparaging of computer simulations. Be careful Nick, you’ll get cancelled for refusing to believe the thermageddonists precious models!!

Reply to  Andrew Wilkins
June 2, 2022 5:28 pm

Computer simulations are fine for testing scenarios. But these don’t even claim to be current. From the first one, abstract:
In 200-year-long preindustrial climate simulations, we identify robust consequences of abruptly increasing Greenland runoff …
The second one is early Holocene. And for the third one:
Our study implies that the 7°C TP warming at the end of 21st century under the representative concentration pathway 8.5 (RCP8.5) scenario can enhance the AMOC by about 10%.”
Well, maybe. But we aren’t there yet, and haven’t had the “7°C TP warming “. Maybe we will.

Andrew Wilkins
Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 3, 2022 2:07 am

So essentially, climate models are complete pants.
Glad we agree.

Dave Andrews
Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 3, 2022 8:24 am

RCP8.5 is complete and utter pants

Richard Page
Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 3, 2022 10:46 am

So models that disagree with your cognitive bias are utterly wrong and yet models that agree with it are correct. Nice to see that objectivity and impartiality are still hallmarks of scientific rigour! sarc

Reply to  Richard Page
June 3, 2022 4:04 pm

I don’t think either are wrong. The models in the papers cited were simply not modelling the current period. They were about something else.

%d bloggers like this: