3 ms·
"If this ocean current is collapsing because of the current temperature anomaly, then it has happened." It must be my reading comprehension that's off, but wha
by deadeye 3y ago
"If this ocean current is collapsing because of the current temperature anomaly, then it has happened."
It must be my reading comprehension that's off, but what has happened? What is "it", the ocean current collapsing?
The thing is, I don't see anywhere in the article that says it is collapsing.
"A new study published Tuesday in the journal Nature, found that the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Current – of which the Gulf Stream is a part – could collapse around the middle of the century, or even as early as 2025."
Nowhere does it say it is in the process of collapse, at least that I could find.
- Supermancho 3y agoAMOC includes the NAC - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Atlantic_Current https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Atlantic_Current Additional information, which may or may not be of interest.
- mariusor 3y agoI think what OP wants to say is that despite the timeline for the event being in the future, nothing we can do today will prevent it from happening. The triggers for the event are in the past and nothing can be done, therefore "it has happened".
- deadeye 3y agoThat only makes sense if the predictions are accurate and highly probable. Time unfortunately, has shown that these dire predictions are often wrong. There has been a good 20 years of climate hysteria to pull from. All one has to do is look at old newspapers and read the dire predictions from 2010 to have a good laugh at our sensational media.
- mariusor 3y agoI was merely presenting my interpretation of what OP wanted to say. However I wouldn't classify Nature as "sensational media", the authors of the original are a physicist and a mathematician from a well known University. And I wouldn't call it hysteria when barely anything gets done for the actual climate at a nation state level.
- HWR_14 3y agoFirst, it would be fortunate that dire predictions are often wrong. But they haven't been. Massive environmental predictions have been correct for decades (or feel free to provide examples).
- deadeye 3y agoConsider the fact that there are thousands of environmental predictions. Are some right? Of course, some are. Perhaps only due to the fact that some HAD to be right given a normal distribution of predictions. That could just be survivorship bias. IDK. To find environmental predictions that didn't happen try a google search for "Environmental Predictions that didn't happen", I promise you won't have to dig for results to find what you're looking for. In the lists in various articles you'll find, notice that these predictions are often made by credentialed scientists from prestigious institutions, not an overhyped journalist making leaps from a scientific paper they don't understand. One of biggest problem with the climate science is that it suffers from a selection bias. I think most people who go into that field already have their mind made up and their goal is to affirm their belief. And if they didn't, they'd be an unfunded nobody labeled a crackpot...as the skeptics/moderates often are.
- HWR_14 3y agoI'm talking about the massive predictions. Those with a good amount of agreement among scientists. I won't do you research for you. Try to find some examples, and you'll find that the scientific community has been correct. Or prove me wrong!