By P Gosselin
AMOC Uncertainties
By Frank Bosse at Klimanachrichten
A “collapse” of the AMOC (Atlantic overturning circulation) cannot be “calculated” at all. We have reported on several projections of the AMOC here, most recently here and here.
There is now an interesting twist to the once very “celebrated” study (DD23 below), which predicted a collapse of the AMOC between 2025 and 2095 with 95% certainty!
It actually already existed in September 2023 when the preprint appeared, i.e. only around 3 months after the publication of DD23. Now the official publication in the journal “Science Advances” (BY24 below). The title speaks volumes:
The uncertainties are too large to determine ‘tipping point times’ of major Earth system components from historical data.”
Longer sections of the current paper are dedicated to DD23. She had drawn (far too) far-reaching conclusions from the SST (sea surface temperatures) of the “Atlantic Subpolar Gyre” with the help of variance and autocorrelation determinations, using the HadiSST1 data set alone. This was not permissible, BY24 finds, because the SSTs there are NOT simply observations when these are not available in the required spatial and temporal resolution. Something is added, in principle it is a model.
In BY 24 it is now calculated that when using different data products (e.g. also NASA’s ERSSTv5 with other “infill methods”) very different “collapse times of the AMOC” are determined: “between 2000 and infinity”!
Since the real observations are included in all SST data products, in the end it only depends on how the observations are “supplemented” using a model in order to determine a collapse time. This is obviously nonsense, the results are sensitive to the data used.
So whenever you read about any “tipping point” times: In truth, they cannot be determined at all because we do not (yet) have enough reliable information on the system.
Will this also be the case with “The last generation…before the tipping points” – as the movement is called in full? Its name is inherently unscientific. Bad news for “science followers”!
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
The believers will be raptured before that happens.
Models are great for checking what we know. They answer the question of – “Is this how it works?” But that is all they’re good for, checking.
Instead of the definitive… Is this how it works…being answered by models,
What’s really answered is one of numerous possibilities…Is this how it could work?
And if you reach a conclusion based on a flawed thought process, you may well be able to force a computer to produce the same answer/response (because you have essentially programmed your thought process as valid), but you’ll still be wrong in the end once your flawed thought process is uncovered. Experiments in the real world tend to do that. I’m quoting (paraphrasing?) somebody here, but can’t remember who: All models are ultimately wrong. Some may be useful.
AMOC Dittos. The only reliable tipping points are associated with tipping bucket rain gauges. Beyond that, there is no proof the AMOC ever shut down — except in Hollywood movies.
Yeah there is.
There was no Atlantic to MOC not so long ago. Was it even there when there was a Panama connection between Atlantic and Pacific, up until 2.8Ma BP? Probably but weaker. The solar energy has to be carried polewards from the saturated tropics so it can evaporate better to Tropopause and hence radiate away to space. It won’t stop trying. 36% of all the LWIR lost to space is transported to space this way, 32% radiated from the surface and 32% from the atmosphere, roughly, overall.
.
Equilibrium will always be reestablished.
Equilibrium is not a feature of a chaotic dynamic system
Climate states have shown to be closer to a bistable oscillator than a linear tendency toward equilibrium.
The present era of glaciation and deglaciation is a good example. The ice builds up on land until it reaches its limit of carrying and the calving of the glaciers then takes over; cooling the oceans so the snowfall drops off, sea level rises to accelerate the calving and ice shelves break free. The process continues until most of the ice in the NH has gone.
There have been a number of periods of snowball Earth due to lifeforms feeding themselves to oblivion to then slowly recover with new lifeforms adapted to the new environment.
Yes it is. Chaoticsm is not related to equilibrium. Chaos is simply that the performance of a system is either not yet understood well enough to predict future behavior, and/or that there is a lot of variation in performance.
All systems will always seek to establish or reestablish an equilibrium state. Temporary variations in system inputs may temporarily upset an equilibrium, after which it will go back to its equilibrium state … or alternatively longer term variations in system inputs may cause the system to reestablish equilibrium at a different baseline.
If this Earth had ANY tipping points, it would have tipped long ago and none of us would be sitting here discussing it.
Sounds like the theory of climate tipping points has tipped over and failed. 🙂
The finding that these doom predictions about the AMOC are uncertain and wrong is not new.
For example
“A 30-year reconstruction of the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation shows no decline”
https://doi.org/10.5194/os-17-285-2021
Also, there is the argument that as long as the Earth is rotating, there will be jet streams and ocean over-turnings.
My question there is, why does politics and journalism NOT do their homework?
I yet have to see a critical interview of someone like Rahmstorf. Rahmstorf should know about the model incompleteness, so he is either competent of lying by omission (he just sticks out because he happily mixes his wrong research with politics, not that his achievements in either are particularly outstanding).
Personally, I can guess which one is the case, https://sealevel.info/rahmstorf/
and
https://rankexploits.com/musings/2009/source-of-fishy-odor-confirmed-rahmstorf-did-change-smoothing/
“The fact that the change in smoothing was inadvertently not disclosed to readers, and was also not explained in “The (Copenhagen) Synthesis Report” is unsettling.”
Rahmstorf has a proven track record of not disclosing inconvenient facts, which should disqualify him from research in any rational field!
My question there is, why does politics and journalism NOT do their homework?
In short, because they’ve become lazy echo chambers parroting the approved political narrative to further their own idealistic liberal viewpoint… and careers.
I disagree. Politicians and journalists (no real distinction) are pulling all-nighters generating gaslighting masterpieces. You are just laboring under the misapprehension that their job is to shed light on the truth. It is not. It is to propagandize the party line. Truth doesn’t enter into it at all.
Exactly right.
Expecting the leftwing propaganda media to do the right thing is wishful thinking. Their job is not to inform, it’s just the opposite, to distort the truth when it serves their political purposes.
The Leftwing Propaganda Media is the most dangerous organization in the world when it comes to threats to our individual freedoms.
The People cannot govern themselves properly if they are fed lies all day, every day, the way it is today. Distortions of the truth cause too many people to vote for the wrong person (Democrats), thinking they are doing the right thing.
Just look at the Democrat fools the Leftwing Propaganda Media has managed to put in the White House. Four more years of these fools and we can kiss our personal freedoms goodby.
It’s probably only been there for 100 million years max, so why should it hang around much longer only another hundred million at the most.
I’m never sure whether you deniers are really dumb or just pretending to be. In certain chaotic systems you may not be able to get timing for certain (but not necessarily all) bifurcations (“tipping points”) but that doesn’t mean these won’t come ever. Imagine a tall column, flat top, 1 m in diameter, and a basketball on top. We all know the basketball will fall off some time. It’s very hard to predict when. If there’s an unstable equilibrium, it may persist for a long time, even indefinitely, but it will collapse.
You ruler monkeys need “tipping points” to keep the hype alive.
Instead of cheap insults, you should acknowledge that the alarmists have lost this particular debate and move on!
>> but that doesn’t mean these won’t come ever
is already answered in the paper, just read!
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.adl4841
“On the basis of the arguments brought forth, we do not see a direct constraint on the dynamics away from the tipping point.”
Alarmists are the literal strawmen you deniers have created. Climate science has definitely not lost this debate that doesn’t even exists outside of your imagination.
Well, no. The sentence you quoted is in reference to a very specific type of calculation. You just yanked out of context something that looked supporting to your argument.
Amazing: CO2 controls ocean currents, is there anything the Magic Molecule cannot do?
What a great illustration to the old adage, that science looks like magic to the untrained eye!
Deniers created alarmists? Alarmists don’t exist? So you are the strawman?
Well, if you pretend not to understand this, I can’t help you.
Wow.. you really are off your meds today.
In your own little fantasy la-la-land, cringing in fear of your own imaginings.
A wise man from the past, Seneca, said: “We suffer more in our imagination more often than in reality.”
I think this describes Climate Alarmists pretty good.
The sentence I cited answers your very specific question about the “timing for certain (but not necessarily all) bifurcations (“tipping points”)”, to me it this seems relevant and on topic:
“https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.adl4841
“On the basis of the arguments brought forth, we do not see a direct constraint on the dynamics away from the tipping point.””
>> supporting to your argument.
I do not make any argument here , but just point out that since this information is in the article we discussing here, this particular debate was already over, before you asked your question, as it is already answered in the article. That you do not seem to understand this does not really surprise me, but I cannot help you any more than pointing you to the statement, which is quite clear.
and
I didn’t ask anything. I just pointed out that the referenced papers didn’t say what you thought they said.
Chuckle. Comparing a simple model of static equilibrium in a well-described system is hardly analogous to an imaginary scenario in a complex system that remains poorly understood. However, if no other force acts on your basketball, it should never fall and will remain at rest atop the pole.
Both are unstable, that’s the similarity.
No. Both may be subject to perturbation. Both are essentially stable absent such. The static system is very simple and perturbations are reasonably predictable occurrences. The dynamic system is complex and poorly understood, as are any conceivable perturbations. No one can say what will happen to either, though probabilities of the former are within the realm of expectation. There is essentially zero quantifiable expectation regarding the latter.
A lever and a Saturn V rocket are both machines, as is the climate system itself. Complexity and uncertainty make them each unsuitable examples of each other.
Yes. And the thing that characterizes unstable equilibrium is that small perturbations can push the system outside of it.
We can agree that the basketball on a pole is unstable because we have observed such circumstances and the ball falls off.
We can agree that ghosts run away from Pacman when he eats a powerpill because we have observed it happening on a computer screen, manty times.
However, the leap you have made, that therefore GHOSTS ARE REAL, is a little far for me to follow.
You see, observations of the real world, and computer simulations are not equivalent.
Except I haven’t made any leap like that. This is not how it works. I just illustrated what the papers said ‘cos you had obviously misunderstood them. Please react to what I say.
Yet you dismissed Mark Whitney’s point that static equilibrium can exist also. You made a different point. However, here is the crux, as old as the earth is, where have tipping points occurred? Was the earth destroyed? Note, I didn’t say no extinctions occurred, just that the earth wasn’t destroyed.
The earth has alternated between ice ages and no ice at the poles. Those are the extremes. Can humans adapt to each? Let’s hope so, but in the end, the earth will survive. Consequently, your tipping point example is meaningless anyway.
“Static” is irrelevant to the “Stable-unstable” spectrum. Equilibrium may be unstable and static, the basketball on a column is an example to that. Mark evidently confuses these.
In case of an AMOC collapse Europe around the North Sea would suffer an almost immediate drop of 10C in temperature (paradoxical but true) for years. In a sense those areas will become uninhabitable.
I did react to what you said. I reacted to what the papers said.
They found AMOC collapse in computer models. Pacman found ghosts in computer models.
They did not find AMOC collapse in real world observations. Pacman does not find ghosts outside of the computer.
You, however, read those papers, found AMOC collapse in computer models and concluded they were real.
That is just the same as thinking Pacman and his Ghosts are real.
This is not why you are wrong. It is possible that AMOC collapse and Ghosts are real, outside of computers.
This is why you are ridiculous.
I can feel how you struggle here with the thing otherwise known as science. FYI models are just complex calculations, so they actually predicted AMOC collapse. You know s=v*t is an (extremely simple) model, and if v=10 km/h, I can predict that the moving vehicle that is currently at my location will be 20 km away from me after two hours. I can’t see this (quoting your words) “in real world observations” now, it’s a prediction.
If you can’t grasp the above then you’re terminally lost in the sauce in debates about any science, and this is not just a prediction from me but a “real world observation” as well, if you know what I mean.
We clearly have a different view of what science is.
Let me explain my position: Science is a process of explaining the world that allows any explanation except:
A) Explanations contradicted by logic.
And B) Explanations contradicted by observation.
Nothing is definitively proven to be true but explanations that pass both A and B repeatedly can respectably be treated as true. Like gravity.
You have clearly described a version of science that only rules out Test A – Explanations contradicted by logic.
This means that you are seeing no value in Test B – Observations.
That leaves you supporting something that looks like science, and does include science, but also includes a lot else.
There are logical theories behind Ghosts, UFOs, Telekenesis and the rest of parapsychology. But no-one can find any reliable empirical evidence for that sort of thing. That is why Ghosts are classified as Pseudoscience.
AMOC collapse passes Test A but has no evidence relating to Test B.
It is pseudoscience.
This is why you are ridiculous. You are referencing papers that could be in the Fortean Times. And you don’t even know why that is a problem.
Oh, now I understand what your misconception is. No, of course what you say is wrong, and this is crucial to you to understand.
It’s ironic how quickly we get to the fundamentals 🙂 Deniers usually come up with some contrived definition, just like you, in order to be able to use that to arbitrarily dismiss what scientists say. But your thing is kinda salvageable.
Science is observations and a so called formal, consistent mathematical theory that fits those observations. “Fits” means predictions (calculations) are matching observations to a certain error. The theory is usually called a “model” and I know this word scares you deniers. But here it has a different meaning so you don’t have to worry. Natural sciences basically have two different models, Quantum Mechanics and Relativity. In practice we use a third one, the Newtonian (that has already been falsified, how ironic) because it’s still extremely precise for our needs.
Now modelling (as in climate modelling) is just predictions (calculations) in these models. This is it. It’s no arbitrarily made up things that you (wrongly) believe. Modelling is essentially an approximate, stepwise solution to a (usually extremely) complicated system of differential equations that describe the current problem. You deniers are usually ignorant of how widely it’s used. For example for orbital mechanics. I can’t see the rage about that… For climate, you can’t reliably follow trajectories in the state space (ie. you can’t predict weather) but what they do is just mapping the state space ‘cos that’s climate, and we are interested exactly in that.
Hope I could help you to get a better understanding of science.
The climate system is more like a marble and two bowls side by side. Most of the time perturbations are resisted and the system reverts to typical conditions. At some point though the marble will jump out of bowl 1 and into bowl 2… then after a long time, back to bowl 1. We’re in bowl 2 (Holocene) and bowl 1 is the next glaciation.
Temperatures and CO2 levels have both been much higher without tipping over to a hot regime in an imaginary third bowl. The risk to fear is the coming tipping point into glaciation.
How do you know that?
The column analogy is from the mind of a zero-science idiot.
Bares no resemblance to the topic whatsoever.
Chaotic is not unstable.
Static equilibrium is always stable.
How did you get the impression that someone had claimed that?
There’s a thing called “unstable equilibrium”. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stability_theory#Stability_of_fixed_points
A better analogy would be a wonky ball in a wide shallow bowl.
Chaotic, yet inherently stable…
…. unless someone kicks the ball.
Please list the evidence that your condescending example is anywhere close to describing how the AMOC works and is an accurate model of its current state.
You do have evidence, don’t you?
The two papers referenced in the article.
Yes, of course, see above.
No “scientific” evidence in either of them…
FAIL..
“even indefinitely, but it will collapse”
Now that really is dumb
Okay, I see you cannot get it, I elaborate on that. So it can happen soon, but it may take a long time. If conditions don’t change. FYI conditions are going in the wrong direction.
It is dumb because AMOC has been around for a few million years now, that is STABILITY you can’t deny.
Yawn.. a fake and totally meaningless prophecy.
Compounding on your idiocy as all the BS keeps falling back in on you, as you dig deeper and deeper.
And based on a totally irrelevant child-minded analogy.
So, you’re saying there’s a chance.
No. I’m just pointing out that the papers referenced in the article above never say there’s no chance. They only claim we can’t time it.
Or actually expect it at all. There is not “no chance” Klingons will attack Earth, either.
It must be such a pathetic existence..
…. living in a tiny mind built only from its own imaginary fears.
I’m never sure whether you deniers are really dumb…
And your charm school was?
Technical University of Budapest. They taught me not to show mercy to idiots.
Did they?
And now you’re hopelessly woke. Good job
For actually understanding a scientific article?
I love your equations.
If so you’ll surely love climate scientists’ equations. Go read them at last.
I think you might have missed the lesson about stopping digging when you are in a hole.
So you offed all your teachers?
HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW……
Oh, the University of Budapoop., that is MY charm present for you.
“They taught me not to show mercy to idiots.”
Which explains why you keep belting your head against that brick wall.
Self flagellation is such a funny thing to watch.
So Griff went off to Budapest to get an “education”. I’m impressed.
No, it attended… but obviously did not get any education.
A “Participation” or “Was-here-sometimes”, certificate, at best.
I’m not Griff.
In my time it was world class. Now I’m not sure.
1) If something remains in an unstable equilibrium indefinitely, then it won’t collapse by definition, and sounds pretty stable. that sounds really dumb.
2) if you predict something is going to happen but you can’t predict when, then is it really a prediction? It’s more of an unfounded assertion. That sounds really dumb.
Bad wording, sorry. It can take time you can’t calculate.
Yes.
Ok, I was being a little snarky but you took time to respond, so thanks. Let me follow up. I’ll accept your answer that prediction without a timeframe is still a prediction. One prediction that is generally accepted is that the sun will go nova sometime in the next few billion years. ok, bad for earth and any life that may be in existence at that time, but so what?
Same for a prediction of the climate change apocalypse. if one can’t predict whether it will be in the next 10, 100, or 1,000 years then so what? An apocalyptic prediction with no timeframe is nothing more than fearmongering and propaganda.
Red giant but probably not nova. A distinction without a difference to be sure vis à vis life on earth.
I think the time frame here is in the 100 year range, if conditions stay the same. At the moment they are deteriorating. Furthermore, if it is really a tipping point, crossing it means a sudden and dramatic change. Remember, timing is the problematic part, they never say crossing is impossible.
Which means you have no science to enable you to calculate when. That’s like saying the earth will encounter an extinction event from an asteroid in the next 100 years. Prove me wrong!
I didn’t calculate anything. I read those papers the article above references.
You don’t need me for that 😉 remember your track record
I’m a septuagenarian. I no longer buy extended warrantees because they are useless to me.
Your predictions fit the same pattern.
Exactly the same as the Parousia. You have faith in your tipping point and Christians have faith in the second coming.
Nobody knows the day or the hour. But we know it must come!
The problem is, your pseudo-religion of Climastrology is false.
“Bad wording,”
And totally gormless rationale. !
‘In certain chaotic systems’
I’m glad to see that you admit that the earth’s climate system is a chaotic system. In fact it is a ‘meta-stable’ system, i.e. a chaotic system in constrained equilibrium, and it has been for hundreds of millions of years.
What is important in a system of constrained equilibrium are the constraints, not the drivers. And the constraints for the climate system of our water planet are the properties of water. In particular is the extreme sensitivity of evaporative cooling to water temperature, which is nicely pictured in Figure 5 or Willis Eschenbach’s article ‘Rainergy’ (WUWT, May 21, 2924). Essentially, limited evaporative cooling at water temperatures of less than 25C provides a downside constraint to tropical ocean temperatures, while excessive evaporative cooling constrains to tropical ocean temperatures to less than 30C. This constrained temperature band of tropical ocean temperatures provides stability to the entire climate system.
There are many climate system drivers, including solar activity, the relative movement of the earth with respect to the sun, meteorites, etc., that are much more important than anthropological drivers, yet none of these have managed to overwhelm the system constraints in hundreds of millions of years. So I seriously doubt that any of your ‘tipping points’ driven by human activity are about to overwhelm the extremely robust constraints of our meta-stable climate system.
I can’t understand how you get the impression that scientists deny this… Perhaps you should familiarize yourself with science first.
Not if you hold onto your balls.
Your silly pejorative namecalling notwithstanding, your example as cited is ridiculously irrelevant.
A basketball sitting on top of a column is obviously an unstable system, the opposite of equilibrium. As even you know, even the slightest perturbation sends it over the edge.
AMOC is a stable system entirely at equilibrium, driven by solar inputs, and the ocean as a stabilizing heat sink that sends excess equatorial heat energy northwards toward the polar region to satisfy thermal equilibrium. As further affected by oceanic and terrestrial topography, and the Coriolis effect and prevailing westerly wind patterns in the northern hemisphere. None of those stabilizing effects will be upset by a minor temporary flush of freshwater to the north Atlantic by a Greenland ice sheet that inexplicably instantly melts (???).
If the AMOC is to be affected at all, it will be temporary and most likely will not terminate the current but simply move it slightly to the east. The AMOC will predominate until plate tectonics inevitably rearranges the continents tens or hundred of millions of years from now.
I believe the term is critically stable. A critically stable system goes unstable at the slightest perturbation.
Yes, there’s unstable equilibrium whether you like it or not. I don’t like wikipedia but for these simple things here a link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stability_theory#Stability_of_fixed_points they specifically use a very similar example (ball on a hill).
As far as I can understand relevant science (and I’m not a climate scientist) above a certain warming it becomes unstable. This is a scientific thing, please go read the relevant papers.
Well, I’m pretty sure you can share your insights in some scientific journals in the form of papers.
Since your basketball stubbornly refuses to fall and for 500 million years has somehow returned to the top of the column each time it is knocked off by an extinction event I am convinced your worrying about “tipping points” is foolish.
How do you know that?
Bla bla bla bla bla, apparently you are dumb enough to fail posting an actual counterpoint instead of this cheap drivel you bought at a third hand store.
Re the basketball on the tower, how do you “know” it will fall, what evidence do you have, what facts support your hypothesis. You know nothing about the future prospects of that ball except in the construct you have just imagined.
I don’t think I have to explain this. You know very well. Anyway, wikipedia has almost the same example, incidentally. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stability_theory#Stability_of_fixed_points
What a load of mindless gibberish.
Invests a stupid irrelevant analogy in a petty and juvenile attempt to push a fantasy.
We know you are not pretending to be DUMB… It is your actual permanent state.
This doesn’t deny that an AMOC “tipping point” will happen. It does say that there is no way to determine WHEN with the current state of science, and that there is zero indication that it is even beginning to weaken.
By the way, in the described experiment, there is no disturbing force. That basketball WILL stay up there forever.
Exactly.
Yes, there is 😉
Only in your mind. In my mind there is a constraint of a raised edge at the top of the column that keeps the basketball on the top. Prove me wrong!
Moving the goalposts, as always, right?
So there is a clear tipping point in your argument, the edge. There is no such clear tipping point in the climate system. This is the point there is no way to prove there is a tipping point, in fact there is zero evidence there is one.
Oh look…. A moronic little analogy that bares zero resemblance to anything to do with climate.
Just DUMB. !
I may not agree with what he says, but I will defend to the death his right to say it.
I only request the debate be adult.
It is not an unstable equilibrium. That is an oxymoron.
It is critically stable. A small perturbation always upsets a critically stable situation.
We are not the same. I think science denial is dangerous and should be suppressed. But at least it should be treated with maximum contempt.
It’s literally called “unstable equilibrium” you moron.
Despite continental drift, mass volcanic eruptions and asteroid impacts
the Earth’s history of recovering from extinction events and returning to
a stable life supporting ecosystem is proof of its extreme stability
and resistance to “tipping points”. Humanity’s effect on the planet is
nothing more than a mild rash on its surface, some day it may just scratch
us off and continue on as if nothing at all had happened.
Or as RGB used to say, if it hasn’t already happened in the past what makes you think it’s going to happen in the future.
Upfront warning, it’s 28C – the end is nigh.
“”The uncertainties are too large to determine…””
Sounds very much like “We haven’t the faintest idea”. Which seems awfully off-narrative…
Media are crucial in all of this because the science is settled … We know what the issues are and we know what needs to be done in response and we know the timeframe,”
And that includes science journals.
Kilowatts… On sale, 2 for the price of 4, get em while supplies last. No substitutions exchanges or refunds
Limit – one per customer!
The headline could have been:
“Atlantic overturning circulation unlikely to run AMOC”
I see what you did there, but isn’t the “M” word missing?
Damn! Lol
Does anybody else, recall reading an article on this very subject, about 50 years ago in Scientific American?
That would have been back in the Global Cooling (Ice Age Commeth) period
This particular climate change scare story seems to turn up periodically. I don’t exactly remember when it first started.
Maybe even beyond infinity.
Lightyear is abuzz about your comment
Story tip
London’s low emission zone improved children’s exam scores, study claims
Effect on the key stage 2 test results of Greater London students was ‘comparable to reducing class size by 10 or giving teachers a bonus’
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/08/10/london-lez-improves-children-exam-scores-lse-claims/
Well, it made me laugh.
Ergo: less CO2, higher test scores.
Oh yeah.
Ergo: less street noise, higher test scores.
Sounds reasonable.
Or they used the tried-and-true Fake Data.
Computer models are based upon logic and logic means certainty of choice as in either/or, yes/no,on/off, etc., no matter how many levels of choice may be involved in one decision path (e.g. a one to many list of choices). That means choices are restricted and do not allow for any uncertainty no matter how you try to program it to do so.
Uncertainty simply identifies as uncertainty in logic whether great or small and a good programmer will capture this risk rather than have a program that never produces any output at all.
Um, I might be misunderstanding what you’re trying to say here, but no, you can absolutely have uncertainty. Take a look at Conway’s Game of Life for an example, as explained here by Veritasium – https://youtu.be/HeQX2HjkcNo?feature=shared
Even if we grant the warmunists prediction of an overturned AMOC due to a completely implausible if not impossibe mass flush of freshwater into smack dab in the middle of the AMOC, so what?
The flow may be interrupted but it won’t come to a screeching halt. The natural tendency to seek a new equilibrium that moves equatorial oceanic heat toward the north polar region could simply relocate itself easily to the east. After all it’s a pretty big ocean. And even if the AMOC did not shift itself eastward, any freshwater flushes by definition are temporary, if not cyclic, because the Greenland ice cap can melt only until there is no more ice to melt.
The worst case is the east coast of North America MAYBE gets slightly colder (not by much, however since prevailing winds are from the west, so are already relatively cold and dry, not from the east) along with northwestern Europe – isn’t that supposed to be a good thing if you’re a warmunist? The world does not end.
The Cassandra theme of warmunists is simply both implausible AND is a yawner.
Actual data showed nothing so the authors had to supplement them with data generated by models based on the sought conclusions … and strangely enough, they succeed.
“With four parameters I can fit an elephant, and with five I can make him wiggle his trunk.”
Von Neumann
…And even if we did, the chaotic nature of the climate system would still prevent any reliable predictions being made.
Nature will make us all idiots if we allow her by cooperating.
Unless I am mistaken, there have been a number of periods where the AMOC HAS collapsed.
They are called Heinrich and Dansgaard-Oeschger Events. Six events have been recorded in the North Atlantic marine sediments, where there are streams of coarse-grained sediments derived from land, carried there by melt water and melting icebergs.
“These freshwater dumps reduced ocean salinity enough to slow deep-water formation and the thermohaline circulation…..and cause the North Atlantic to cool”
Source: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
Very nice.
A model is just a quantification of a theory or hypothesis. A model run through a computer does not produces facts or data, just predictions that can range in usefulness from “the sun will rise tomorrow” (useful) to the “Hale Bopp Comet means the end is nigh” (silly).
The climate alarmist crowd already “knows” that CO2 will destroy the planet. It is not surprising all of their models made in service to their belief predict this outcome.
inconvenient for them that as each of their predictions reaches its time, the Climate does not cooperate—-Just as the Hale Bopp Comet came and went without ill effect.
The smart Climate Alarmists keep their predictions far enough into the future to avoid such embarrassments.
Since real data is not used in the inputs, only test cases, the output is projections, not predictions.
And yes, the Climate Syndicate has 50 years of failed predictions and no signs they will improve on that record.
I like that timeline – infinity.
Much could happen by then. 😉