Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach
I was greeted this morning by a CNN headline saying “Critical Atlantic Ocean current system is showing early signs of collapse, prompting warning from scientists“. YIKES! Be very afraid.
The CNN article opens by saying:
A crucial system of ocean currents may already be on course to collapse, according to a new report, with alarming implications for sea level rise and global weather — leading temperatures to plunge dramatically in some regions and rise in others.
Scary stuff, all right. It is referring to a study in Science magazine, Physics-based early warning signal shows that AMOC is on tipping course.
It’s the resurrection of another “tipping point” scare. And of course, despite the title, rather than being “physics-based” this study is actually “model-based”. It’s a study of the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Current (AMOC). Here’s what the AMOC looks like.
Figure 1. The Atlantic Meridional Overturning Current (AMOC). Red is surface currents, orange is descending, blue is deep return currents. Graph at the bottom shows the AMOC flow measured at 26.5°N, in units of Sverdrups (abbreviated “Sv”, 1 Sv = 106 cubic meters per second)
Well, actually, they do start out with physical measurements, viz:
Continuous section measurements of the AMOC, available since 2004 at 26°N from the RAPID-MOCHA array, have shown that the AMOC strength has decreased by a few Sverdrups (1 Sv = 106 m3 s−1) from 2004 to 2012, and thereafter, it has strengthened again.
Not mentioned is that this increase in the AMOC strength has continued up until the latest study in 2018. So in the real world, there’s no indication of any collapse in the AMOC. There’s no “tipping point” in sight, it’s actually slightly strengthening … go figure.
So why do they say there’s a possible tipping point that could lead to a collapse?
A model, of course. In this case, it’s the CESM, the Community Earth System Model. What they did was to start up the model, then add modeled freshwater very gradually to the modeled North Atlantic, presumably simulating a melting of the Greenland ice or somesuch which might shut down the AMOC. Here’s their description:
A quasi-equilibrium approach is followed by adding a slowly varying freshwater flux anomaly FH in the North Atlantic over the region between latitudes 20°N and 50°N. This freshwater flux anomaly is compensated over the rest of the domain, as shown in the inset of Fig. 1A. We linearly increased the freshwater flux forcing with a rate of 3 × 10−4 Sv year−1 until model year 2200, where a maximum of FH = 0.66 Sv is reached.
And what did they find? Well, they found that in the model year 1,758, which in our terms is the year 3782 AD, the AMOC fell off a cliff.
IMPENDING TIPPING POINT CATASTROPHE IN 3782 AD! EVERYONE PANIC!!!
Figure 2. Model results showing AMOC tipping point. Figure 1A from the study linked above.
Now if you follow my work, you’ll know that I often ask the most impertinent questions. So I got to thinking about something they neglected to mention … just how much modeled fresh water have they added?
Trigger Warning: the next part involves that dreaded creature “math”, so if you’re allergic to math, just skip to the last line of the bold section below …
To continue with the mathiness, when the tipping point occurred in 3782 AD, they were adding 0.527 Sverdrups (“Sv”) of fresh water (top scale, Figure 2). That means on average over the entire period up to the tipping point, they were adding half of that, 0.264 Sverdrups.
Now, a Sverdrup is a million cubic meters per second. So over the 1,758 model years from the start up to the tipping point, they’ve added a total of:
0.264 Sv * 106 cubic meters per second/Sv * 1758 years * 31,556,926 seconds per year / 109 cubic meters per cubic kilometer =
14,629,305 cubic kilometers of modeled fresh water added.
Now, fourteen million cubic kilometers of water, that’s a very big number. So let’s compare it to something that’s also very big … say the total volume of water in the entire Greenland Ice Cap. Here’s that comparison.
Figure 3. Comparison of the volume of water contained in the Greenland Ice Cap with the volume of freshwater added to the model from the start of the run until the tipping point.
The mind boggles … like I said, tipping is optional …
Not much else left to say about that. I’m reminded of two of Mark Twain’s quotes, viz:
The reports of my death are greatly exaggerated.
and
The Mississippi between Cairo and New Orleans was twelve hundred and fifteen miles long one hundred and seventy-six years ago. . . . Its length is only nine hundred and seventy-three miles at present. …
In the space of one hundred and seventy-six years the Lower Mississippi has shortened itself two hundred and forty-two miles. That is an average of a trifle over one mile and a third per year. Therefore, any calm person, who is not blind or idiotic, can see that in the Old Oolitic Silurian Period, just a million years ago next November, the Lower Mississippi River was upwards of one million three hundred thousand miles long, and stuck out over the Gulf of Mexico like a fishing-rod.
And by the same token any person can see that seven hundred and forty-two years from now the lower Mississippi will be only a mile and three-quarters long, and Cairo and New Orleans will have joined their streets together, and be plodding comfortably along under a single mayor and a mutual board of aldermen.
There is something fascinating about science. One gets such wholesale returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of fact.
In closing, here’s a bit of history regarding so-called “tipping points” from the unquestioned king of climate alarmism, NASA’s very own Dr. James Hansen …
Riiight …
Here in our redwood forest home near the Northern California coast, the giant storms of the Pineapple Express have rolled on by. Torrential rain, gale-force winds. We were without power for five days, trees and power poles down everywhere. Our fossil-fueled generator worked like a champ … and after the storm, today is sunny. So I climbed onto the roof, cleaned the gutters, and washed the skylights. What’s not to like?
My very best to all,
w.
As Usual: I ask folks to quote the exact words they’re discussing, it avoids endless misunderstandings.
My Other, Often Controversial, Writings: My blog is “Skating Under The Ice: A Journal of Diagonal Parking in a Parallel Universe“. And over on X, aka Twitter, I just today got my 10,000th follower … @weschenbach for those interested.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
What’s causing Greenland to melt, is it AMOC? If so, as it slows surely Greenland will stop melting and AMOC will increase , a bit like there’s an oscillation. How can a cliff edge be met?
The increase in freshwater they model is in the Atlantic between 20N and 50N so not due to Greenland melting although they point out that the quantity in their model corresponds to 80x the Greenland Ice. They point out that the result would be a cooling of the N Hemisphere and a substantial increase in sea ice.
So where’s this massve amount of freshwater coming from?
What is interesting is that the melting isn’t uniform, or apparently even related to elevation, albeit most of the melting is along the coast. However, even the coastal melting isn’t uniform. There are local ‘pockets’ of melting, suggesting to me, that there is a high geothermal gradient melting the ice from below.
Hot springs in Greenland are a common natural phenomenon though the island of Uunartoq is the only place where the springs are hot enough to bathe in.
On Disko Island there are thousands of hot springs whilst East Greenland has only just over 100.
https://visitgreenland.com/about-greenland/hot-springs-greenland/
Greenland is warmer when the MOC is slower, so are the AMO and rest of the Arctic, because of negative NAO regimes since 1995. The slight speeding up of the MOC since 2014 is because the NAO has seen a positive regime since then.
Story tip – What’s one private jet when you can fly two? Taylor Swift ramps up the old carbon footprint to new levels – American Thinker
Just to show why the internet must always be approached carefully.
The AT writer failed to observe that she recently bought a bigger, longer range Dassault Falcon 7x trijet for her global ERA tour, and has just a few days ago sold her now second smaller less capable jet. Reason I know that is that back when I was flying the Motorola ‘airforce’ as a very senior exec, we kept 1 Falcon in Phoenix, one in Europe, and 7 plus a G4 (for reaching China from Chicago) in Chicagoland. So was interested in her choice but not as a Swiftie.
BTW, we never worried about our carbon footprint, only about shareholder value.
I’m not a Swiftie either.
But it seems to me that this Dassault is both a legitimate business investment and, from a wider perspective, is facilitating US soft power.
This doesn’t look like a luxury or a toy.
Well, it is not a hair shirt either.
If the Climate Alarmists keep harrassing Taylor Swift, then maybe she will endorse Trump for president.
I wouldn’t bet money on it, but it’s a possibility.
If she did endorse Trump it probably wouldn’t make a difference in the election, but it would be a fun talking point.
I think she endorsed Biden last time, but maybe even she is having buyer’s remorse. A lot of people who voted for Biden last time are.
Willis, wow !
This is a great piece, it made me laugh.
Your take down of this nonsense is great.
But of course they do seem to provide say, lots of opportunities…
Isn’t this the same garbage we had in the 70’s about the ‘ice age cometh’?
Pretty much.
Human-caused Global Cooling was just like Human-caused Global Warming: Lots of speculation, assumptions and unsubstantiated assertions, and no evidence proving their claims.
The one good thing about the Human-caused Global Cooling narrative was it made it very easy to be skeptical of the Human-caused Global Warming narrative that came along later.
Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.
Glad they let you back on Twitter, WE.
Musk is imperfect, but he’s better than what was there before.
Awesomely hilarious.
They have been predicting the eminent collapse of the Gulf Stream for decades.
Since the Day After Tomorrow, at leas..
to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary
I got this 640 acres of Greenland bottom land I can let go cheap. Gotta get my stake for my mining claim in Antarctica…
A late comment, hoping to not offend anyone — including W.E.
I think it is in “How to lie with statistics” by Darrel Huff …
When depicting area or volume, one should use appropriate images.
Volume will show as: cube, rectangular prism, sphere, cone, or cylinder.
Sometimes a person uses one of the above incorrectly when a 2-D image
should be used. A 3-D object of accurate x by y size will appear larger.
It has been many years since I read Huff. OK, I’ll get my coat.
Thanks, John. Yes, I’ve used a 2-D image for that exact reason. The height of the bars accurately reflects the volume.
And I think you mean “A 3-D object of accurate x by y size will appear smaller”. Not sure, I’m just sure my representation is an accurate depiction of the difference.
w.
But, Willis,
When you have read a fair bit of writing by the cancel culture folk, you can start to predict their take-down of your piece. (Maybe).
They might say, the data should be analysed in a dynamic way, not a static way. The static way says that there are X tonnes of ice over Greenland and if (when) that melts, there will be so X more tonnes of water in the oceans.
The dynamic analysis might say that it will continue to rain and snow over Greenland, so that its tonnes Y will have to be added to the temperature-induced melt X. Far more future water to cope with, X + Y, so much more alarming model output potential. Of course, someone has to describe why all that water will not continue to freeze, just as it has for millions of years before now. It is net accumulation that matters.
It must be a decade now since I had the impertinence to calculate on WUWT the number of years it would take to melt Greenland’s ice at the faster rate then proposed in some alarmist paper. IIRC, 23,000 years, which caused several gobsmack comments. It was then that I realised that many readers did not go far down the math road when a simple calculated result could be read in a newspaper.
Please, do keep up your educational effort, Willis. (Loved that second mark Twain quote).
Geoff S
Willis, If anyone can do maths, it’s you. Thanks for the exposure of this wannbe arithmetician who substitutes models for reality.
The UNIPCC in its TAR document says boldly that it could NOT predict weather as it is a mathematically a chaotic system.
Like the 93 undersea volcanoes in the Antarctic somethings got to give.
I believe those are under the ice.
There are more than a hundred of them.
Good, I haven’t personally counted them.
They forced it to rain more in the North Atlantic and less elsewhere to compensate. So they forced an utterly unreal situation until the AMOC broke. Even New Scientist noticed this, apparently.
RealClimate covered it and as usual they (Stefan) desperately spins a response
…to what someone noticed New Scientist had said and completely ignores the point, instead implying we’re much closer to the tipping point than the models started with and unrealistically progressed to.
They didn’t even add CO2. The rain they used just came out of thin air.
Willis, you’re wrong. See https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/02/new-study-suggests-the-atlantic-overturning-circulation-amoc-is-on-tipping-course/ The relevant part:
What that says is that it takes a 1000 years of projection before the AMOC can be found to tip.
But, obviously, there are no ‘early warning signals’ for any climate event 1000 years in the future.
So if they find any ‘early warning signals’ they are not actually proven to be related to the tipping point. They are mere coincidences or artefacts of the data analysis.
(Or prove me wrong by showing me an early warning signal for any climate event, a millennium away).
Think about it.
This is junk science.
But it’s the kind of straw that RealClimate are gripping onto because… That’s all they’ve got left.
No, it doesn’t say that. Geezus… This is so tiring. I repeat the relevant half sentence:
No. You have misunderstood.
In order to find the equilibrium response they had to model it so slowly it took 1000 years plus.
Speeding things up is a different model.
Why assume it will be linear?
Why assume that the responses that pop out of the model at an observable speed will also pop out at an unobservable speed?
Why assume that it is plausible that this immense volume of fresh water can magically appear even faster, anyway?
There are no ‘early warning signals’ for any climate event 1000 years in the future. And there are no ‘early warning signals’ for any unmodeled scenario – because that has not been modelled.
This is what you are defending? This is what Real Climate ids defending?
You really need to stop and pause a while.
Wrong again. They tracked the equilibrium response. The whole point was that. That’s why the increase was so slow. The system was in equilibrium (or extremely near) the whole time. This is explicitly stated here.
With larger or sudden changes, transient effects dominate. They didn’t want them in their experiment.
Mr. olci: You say they tracked the equilibrium response for 1000 years to spot the sign posts on the way. But if the tracking is not valid, the sign posts are on the wrong path. How entertaining to watch you flop around on this, like a fish out of water.
I don’t think anyone has questioned the tracking.
This is utter rubbish. If the model isn’t realistic, the projection of AMOC behaviour (that Stafan calls a “trace”) isn’t realistic. End of story.
??? You can have valid results from even unrealistic models. FYI a lot of cosmological models are not realistic. Actually, exaggerating (to unrealistic levels) some parameter to observe some outcome is a well known method even in (non-simulation) experiments.
Argumentative fallacy. Appeal to Authority without even mentioning the authority!
It’s an appeal to authority even while rejecting the authority of the person(model) being appealed to.
Who is that? 🙂
You can do that but then you must step back and say we’ll that was interesting but has no relevance to the actual AMOC. Certainly you can’t claim to understand the future of AMOC.
How do you know that? Now really, how? Very scientific, you declare things in advance. Anyway, the fact is that you don’t understand this experiment. FYI this is the “best case scenario” when there are no big transients. When there are, things will be very likely much faster (there are other experiments about those).
Because they’re predicting an effect based on a single influence whereas there are myriad influences all impacting the effect.
The argument they’re making is that if an utterly unrealistic amount of fresh water materialised in this region over time then the following trace would happen.
But that will never happen. That. Will. Never. Happen.
So the result is not real even within a GCM. All it tells them is how the model responds under those circumstances and nothing more.
You think a model run on a computer is an experiment?
Nowadays yes.
They did it by taking water from elsewhere. So, in other words, they created deserts in other places. Funny how all that evaporating water from elsewhere ends up in one place.
Well, this is “not even wrong”. The experiment wasn’t about this, they deliberately controlled only one variable. But anyway, you’re wrong about the deserts, too. There’s ample freshwater supply, and there’s evidence for increased rain etc.
From where? It won’t occur if there is no water to cause it! As of now there is no basis for this “model experiment”. It is mental masterbation without a point!
Irrelevant to the experiment, but to make things clear, they didn’t consider Greenland as the only source. Willis actually quoted the exact statement, please check that. Everything outside of the influx zone is source.
Thanks, nyolci. I was blocked from commenting on unrealclimate.org some years back, which should give you an idea of their ethics, integrity, and belief in their own claims. They are scammers who would be out of a job if people realized that there is no climate crisis, so of course they’ll tell us EVERYONE PANIC, THE AMOC IS ABOUT TO QUIT!
Upton Sinclair saw them coming when he famously said:
Next, the idea that we can use a Tinkertoy model to determine the stability of the AMOC 1700 years into the future is a joke. Climate is an insanely complex chaotic system. It has six major subsystems: hydrosphere, atmosphere, lithosphere, cryosphere, biosphere, and electrosphere. None of these are well understood. All of them have internal cycles and resonances, and all of them are constantly exchanging mass and energy with all the others. Your faith in such models is a religion without a scrap of observational support. See my post “Meandering Through A Climate Muddle” for a discussion of the model deficiencies.
Next, where is all the freshwater supposed to come from? Not the total water over the whole time, but the actual flow? The model doesn’t get to a “tipping point” until there is additional water being added to the tune of seventy times the current Greenland melt rate. How is that supposed to happen in the next few decades? The NOAA Grace satellite data shows that despite warming, there has been no increase in the rate of ice loss since the start of measurements in 2002 … where will the fresh water come from?
Next, as I pointed out in the post, studies have shown that to date there’s no slowdown in actual measurements of the AMOC speed. So why should we believe climate models?
Next, I could find nothing in their “Methods” section specifying just how warm the added freshwater is. This is important because density varies with temperature, so the effects of the water would be different depending on its temperature.
Finally, and most importantly, because the earth rotates, the resulting “trade winds” blow warm tropical Atlantic surface waters to the west, and they always will. The resulting warm water current is wind-driven, not caused by density differences.
These hit the northeastern coast of South America, and are forced northwards. The part running north along the US coast and over to Europe we call the “Gulf Stream”. When the warm waters get far enough north, some portion of them cools, sinks, and returns southwards.
These trade winds and the resulting warm-water currents are the driving force behind the AMOC. So as long as the earth is rotating, we’ll have an AMOC.
Or as Carl Wunsch said:
Now, could the AMOC slow down? Sure. It could also speed up. That’s the nature of the giant heat engine we call the climate—it changes constantly.
But a “tipping point” leading to an AMOC collapse?
Get real. That’s just the unrealclimate folks trying to keep the $$ gravy train flowing.
w.
Irrelevant here. They deliberately had one controlled input variable. But if you want to know, they explicitly specified the freshwater source, and even you quoted them:
You can see the other parts of the ocean as a source. In other words, it’s not just Greenland, they only said that as an example. Greenland isn’t even part of the influx zone. But again, this is irrelevant. The whole point was equilibrium, no big transients. And even under these conditions they could produce a very sudden change.
I couldn’t have said it better.
nyolci February 12, 2024 12:07 pm
Irrelevant here. They deliberately had one controlled input variable. But if you want to know, they explicitly specified the freshwater source, and even you quoted them:
No, it’s not “irrelevant here”. They’re claiming that there is some real possibility of a shutdown of the AMOC. For that, they need an immense amount of water. I know where the modeled water comes from. I was asking where in the real world that water would come from.
To get their result, they’ve magically moved millions and millions of tonnes of water from the rest of the planet, including importantly from the Southern half of the AMOC surface loop, and moved it to the northern half … yeah, that’s totally physics-based and a real present danger …
The earth is under an equilibrium state now. Moving it to a modeled state that is far, far from the current equilibrium is a very big transient on anything but a human timescale.
And more to the point, they didn’t “produce a very sudden change” in the AMOC as you falsely claim.
They produced a very sudden change in a Tinkertoy model of the AMOC after shifting millions and millions of modeled tonnes of water and dumping them on 4% of the modeled global surface … and this is supposed to surprise us?
Climate models are well known for being unstable. It takes a whole lot of playing with their parameters to get them to even approximate stability. Of course, when they go off the rails, that run is just left on the cutting room floor, discarded as being unrealistic, and we never hear about it. Here’s an example of what happens when they don’t discard the runs.
Look how many times it’s hit a tipping point and suddenly spiraled down into a snowball earth or runaway warming… do you think that means something about reality, or something about the model?
So it’s no surprise that if you mess around with the modeled reality in any significant manner, sooner or later the model will fall off the perch … but sane people know that means nothing about reality.
Suppose we did what they’ve done, but with modeled incoming solar instead of modeled water. Suppose we very slowly increased the amount of modeled solar over say the continental US until it was say double what it is today, and cut down the solar over the rest of the planet to “balance” it out?
Do you truly think that the CESM wouldn’t fall off the perch from that as well? There’s a limit to how far you can twist the modeled “reality” before the model fails. And yes, when it does, it’s likely to be quick and catastrophic.
And when it finally hits a tipping point from being forced with unrealistically changed modeled solar input … that doesn’t mean diddley-squat.
Your faith in the iterative climate models is endearing. Iterative models are noted for their instability because the output of every step is input to the next step, so small errors become big errors fast. But despite that, you think some random model becoming unstable at some point actually means something.
Those of us who’ve been programming computers for fifty years or so know better than to trust iterative models.
My best to you,
w.
PS—I just realized that there’s another important issue. The climate model determines the amount of rainfall from the physical constraints in each gridcell—surface temperature, air temperature, humidity, CAPE, and the like.
In their experiment they’ve just skimmed off some of the rainfall from 96% of the planet and dumped it on 4% of the planet … but they’re ignoring what that would do to the global energy balance, local temperature, humidity, and a host of other interconnected variables.
My point is that this is an absolutely non-physical warping of modeled global reality. They’re modeling a planet with a magical pipe that removes rainfall from most of the world and dumps it on just 4% of the surface. Thus, claiming that the modeled result has any relationship to actual reality is a joke.
Further thoughts. Average rainfall in the North Atlantic 20°-25°N varies widely, from ~ 100 mm/yr to ~ 1500 mm/yr.
The average is ~750 mm/yr. By my calculations, that’s about 0.48 Sv, which is about the amount they’re adding at the time the model falls off the perch.
So how and where did they add the modeled water? If they just added it evenly all over, that would mean an increase of about 750% in the dryest areas and 50% in the wettest areas … and consider what that would do to the local humidity, SST, air temperature, and other variables.
Of course, the same is true if they added it proportionally. All areas would be getting about double the rainfall … but without doubling the clouds … how does that work?
I’m sorry, but this is nothing but climate mathturbation of the highest order. In a highly and complexly interconnected system like the climate, you can’t just say “OK, now there’s a magic system reducing rain over most of the earth and doubling it in the North Atlantic” without leaving reality even further behind than it already is in such toy models.
w.
Yes. From outside of the domain. Which is almost the entire Earth except from a zone in the North Atlantic. It includes the Antarctica, for example. This is why the whole premise of your article is flawed, beside being irrelevant.
Nyolci, in response to my comment above, you quote me as saying
and then you tell us where they get the water from in modelworld.
But here is my complete statement (emphasis mine):
Please respond to that, as well as to the number of valid points I made in the two comments just above yours.
And regarding the water coming from “outside the domain”, that’s fine for the model.
But as I pointed out in my response, you know, the part of the response you ignored, in the real world the 20°-50°N zone would need to get the water from some real-world source … and there’s no source of fresh water of that size anywhere nearby.
So … just what IN THE REAL WORLD will provide the water that would lead to a collapse of the AMOC?
Regards,
w.
Doesn’t matter whether it is not nearby. No one claimed in the article that it has to be nearby for the model to work. This whole source thing is a straw man.
The whole experiment is strawman.
The source question is explicit and is not a throwaway.
Truth be told, the only source of freshwater lying on the surface of ocean water is Greenland and north of Greenland. Not from freshwater sources south or west of Greenland.
Hudson Bay, Gulf of St. Lawrence, Bay of Fundy, Gulf of Maine, North of Cape Cod, Long Island Sound, New York Harbor, Sandy Hook Bay, Delaware Bay, Chesapeake Bay, etc. are all mixing bowls that thoroughly mix fresh water with salt water so by the time they enter the ocean, they are salt water.
The model is trash.
Inputs are forced to supply irrational amount of water that does not represent actual water nowadays.
Willis writes
I’ve not been blocked AFAIK. So it’ll be interesting to see if my comment makes it past their moderation. Pretty sure this is undeniably true but I expect the “Ray Ladbury” types on RC to have kittens over it if it does make it past.
Well I’m still not banned, they let it through.
So, in what passes for your mind, it is reasonable to make calculations regarding what would happen if 7 times the total fresh water contained in Greenland’s glaciers, were to be dumped into the N. Atlantic?
Mark, you always miss the mark, you genius. They don’t claim this only comes from Greenland. Check out Fig. 1A. Greenland is not even part of the influx zone. The whole territory and ocean outside of the influx zone is kinda the source. But this is even beside the point. Anyway…
Are you going to describe the real-world processes by which all this fresh water (be it from Antarctica or anywhere else) ends up in the Atlantic?
Melting, currents.
The only serious answer to that question is that there are no real world processes that could mimic the model run.
With such a blatant lie causing real psychological harm to millions of the kool aid drinkers, could not some enterprising young liar, I mean lawyer bring suit against this paper’s authors, institution and publication journal for damages? And make it a class action with an award of $100 for a billion people? You’d think winning such a case would tamp down this fraud somewhat…. It boils down to adding 5 times more water to the AMOC than exists on Greenland to cause collapse, 1800 years from now. All made up fantasy with no connection to reality.
Can you include nyolci as a defendant?
Thanks.
This was also in the news in Sweden last night.
University has three pillars, educate, research and distribution of findings.
At least one is standing rigid and strong 😉
Willis, your were doing so very well with this. Why did you have to wrap it up with the splendor of your locale and generator imagery? That’s too envious. The lovely after weather, cleaning up the storm debris, seeing the gutters free and flowing.
I imagine you enjoyed the magnificence of a fossil fuel blower to easily blast away the debris from all surfaces. I always loved a fresh blow after a storm. That image of everything clean is so satisfying.
Cheers.
There is a tipping point
It has nothing to do with the actual climate
It is a tipping point in the climate propaganda war and we are close
In 2022 a fair poll conducted by libertarians found that 59% of scientists believed the CAGW fantasy. Lying leftists polls say 97%
A tipping point is when that 59% percentage goes below 50%
Some people here are AGW deniers. But AGW has nearly 100% support among climate scientists, even among “skeptic” scientists such as Lindzen and Happer.
The probability of changing opinions on AGW is near zero.
But there is hope for changing minds on CAGW. Denying AGW will be counterproductive in that effort.
The leftists quote climate scientists so they do not deny AGW.
They do not invent bizarre theories of climate science.
They go wrong by believing predictions of CAGW doom, which are not based on any science
Too many conservatives go wrong by denying AGW and inventing bizarre alternate theories of climate change. Data free theories or just ignriorig contrary data.
How does that help us support Lindzen, Happer and other “skeptic” scientists trying to refute CAGW? It doesn’t help at all.
Leftists / Democrats are an evil party
They control CO2 to control us
They use Nut Zero as a strategy to implement leftist fascism
Republicans are a stupid party
They don’t stick together to win battles. They don’t focus on 44 years of failed CAGW predictions, since 1979, to fight that CAGW scaremongering.
They break out into cult, such as:
AGW is fake — there is zero evidence of AGW
There is no greenhouse effect
The greenhouse effect can not increase
CO2 above 350ppm does nothing
CO2 cools the planet
CO2 is 97% natural
El Ninos cause all the global warming
Underseas volcanoes cause all the global warming
It’s only the sun, and never mind the NASA satellite measurements of TOA solar energy
All of these claims are FALSE
There are so many of them that conservatives get called science deniers.
I’ve followed climate and energy for 26 years.
In early 2023 I decided to tell conservatives when they are acting like climate Nutters and hurting the effort to refute CAGW predictions of doom.
The leftists are allowed to say anything, from predicting imaginary science free tipping points to imaginary extinctions.
Anyone who thinks denying AGW is the best way to fight back against CAGW scaremongering is stupid. Someone has to say that and take whatever downvotes come later.
.
Dear Mr. President: Mrs. Biden talked to you about using only gov’t servers from now on. I thought we were clear that you can’t go on using private servers and posting as “Richard Greene”.
How did the Khmer civilization fall in the 15th century? They built a magnificent canal system to irrigate rice fields. A drought came for 30 years, then a very strong monsoon and drought again.
Wikipedia gives the following definition for “tipping point”:
“In climate science, a tipping point is a critical threshold that, when crossed, leads to large, accelerating and often irreversible changes in the climate system”.
Is there any good reason to believe that such a thing exists?
Only a significant increase in the density of the troposphere can cause large changes in temperature. During El Niño, when the amount of water vapor in the tropics increases greatly, the global temperature rises. But the amount of water vapor in the troposphere is variable.
A practical illustration of a tipping point: You are trying to catch a train. If you succeed, you sit in the train. If not, you sit in a waiting room.
True, but why should this planet have any?
(Tipping points, not trains.)
What?
No cow catcher?
“leading temperatures to plunge dramatically in some regions and rise in others.”
Sounds very much like weather in various regions.
I am not sure why you are concerned with the freshwater influx being such a large number Willis. It is still a modest amount per annum.
“Modest amount”??
It is TWICE the current freshwater influx.
w.