9 ms·

How Soon Might the Atlantic Ocean Break? Two Sibling Scientists Found an Answer

61 points by jdnier 2y ago

notamy 2y ago
http://archive.is/Dx7EG http://archive.is/Dx7EG
drewg123 2y ago
To save others from reading pages upon pages of fluff: The siblings spent two years refining their approach, doing more tests. Across a thousand runs, the model cranked through the temperature data and settled on a year. Sometimes the model spat out later dates. Sometimes earlier. The two scientists made a plot of the numbers and a neat cluster emerged. Yes—2057. But that’s just the middle point: In 95 percent of the model’s simulations, the AMOC tipped sometime between 2025 and 2095.
- robxorb 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - johnchristopher 2y ago
    > I recall "models" telling us repeatedly we'd all be underwater by now. No, you don't. And googling for https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-e&q=climate+models+that+predicted+we%27d+all+be+under+water https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-e&q=climate+m... gives me that Quora question where people seem to agree https://www.quora.com/Did-climate-scientists-in-the-1980s-predict-a-1-meter-sea-level-rise-by-now https://www.quora.com/Did-climate-scientists-in-the-1980s-pr... Also: https://www.science.org/content/article/even-50-year-old-climate-models-correctly-predicted-global-warming https://www.science.org/content/article/even-50-year-old-cli... (Even 50-year-old climate models correctly predicted global warming Study debunks idea that older models were inaccurate) > Climate change doubters have a favorite target: climate models. They claim that computer simulations conducted decades ago didn't accurately predict current warming, so the public should be wary of the predictive power of newer models. Now, the most sweeping evaluation of these older models—some half a century old—shows most of them were indeed accurate. Now where are you on my list: > Quoting myself (again) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36619271 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36619271 : > - There's no climate change > - Climate change is okay and has no impact > - Climate change exists but it's due to natural causes > - Climate change exists but it's due to natural causes and its impacts are small > - Climate change exists but its impacts are good for us > - Climate change exists but we will adapt > - Climate change exists and its the activists' fault we didn't act because they scared us with their doomsday predictions > - Climate change exists and we shouldn't talk about it because it's scary and scared people are not productive members of society
    - MichaelNolan 2y ago
      The last two items of your list are interesting. I’ve seen people exhibit all the previous items but I’ve never seen anyone exhibit the last two of your list. I have however seen many people (online) state a “doomer” or an “optimist” view that goes like this: > “Climate change is real but there’s nothing we can do about it” > “Climate change is real but it’s being handled so we don’t need to worry about it” I think those two would better fit your list of “stages of climate change denial”
      - johnchristopher 2y ago
        > The last two items of your list are interesting. I’ve seen people exhibit all the previous items but I’ve never seen anyone exhibit the last two of your list. I heard the first one on the radio, it was in a debate/show about eco-anxiety. The second one I read it first on HN https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36618428 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36618428: > > > How about the psychological damage done by the fear mongering caused by these type of news regarding climate change? > > What about it? > You're not concerned about how having such a large percentage of population becoming basically useless due to psychological problems can trouble the future of mankind? > > I have however seen many people (online) state a “doomer” or an “optimist” view that goes like this: > > “Climate change is real but there’s nothing we can do about it” > > “Climate change is real but it’s being handled so we don’t need to worry about it” > I think those two would better fit your list of “stages of climate change denial” Ah, nice addition. Thanks ! I'll think about it before adding them. Originally the list displayed progressive steps (it's a process) but maybe there are some branching to illustrate.
      - blooalien 2y ago
        And then there's me: "Climate change is absolutely real and there's a lot we could do / have done / be doing about it, but we won't do it, because too many of us worship the filthy-rich monsters who created the problem (and then lied to keep it going), and will defend their right to destroy us all for "shareholder value" right up to the very end."
    - pcrh 2y ago
  - scoofy 2y ago
    “We can’t know anything perfectly, and we’ve been wrong before, so why bother modeling anything” is the stock response from the anti-science propagandist. Argue for better models, argue for other models that reproduce similar results, but don’t argue for solipsism.
    - serial_dev 2y ago
      So many of these models are so unreliable for predicting anything (due to the complexity of the problem, lack of precise enough measurements, computing power, and 1000 other valid reasons) that as an individual, I'll treat them as tarot reading with some scientific handwaving. And even if this model is great, how can I tell it from all the other garbage articles? I find it strange that when we talk about replication crisis, It's all fair game and everyone sees that "science" is made up of fallible people and corrupt institutions, but when I don't schit my pants because Wired published a post about the siblings (omg, who cares), then suddenly I'm a anti science propagandist. I'm just a regular guy who disagrees with you on something.
      - borski 2y ago
        Nobody is suggesting you “schit [your] pants.” The point of this isn’t to scare you, but to share information about a new model that predicts new effects. Nobody ever said it was “the most accurate model that exists.” But without even looking at or understanding the model (did you?), you’ve already written it off as “tarot reading.” Certainly not the way I’d approach it, especially as the facts of the last decade or so (not models, but actual recorded data) indicate that the globe is definitely warming and sea levels are definitely rising and glaciers are definitely melting. How do I know? Well, data, but also talking to experts in Iceland (as an example). All of them, every single one, without exception, agreed global warming was happening. Not all of them agreed as to why it was happening, but that it was is no longer a question at all. They are out on these glaciers all the time. They have data going back many decades. Time lapses of the changes in the glaciers over the last 50-100 years. There isn’t really a question, anymore, as to whether the globe is warming; it is. What we do about that is entirely a different discussion, as is why it’s happening. But, you know, facts suck in the face of conspiracy theories and “doubt at all costs,” I guess. That’s my main issue with folks who show up and start yelling that we don’t know anything. We do. We know the globe is warming, significantly. Denying that solves nothing.
  - orf 2y ago
    Which models, specifically, said we would be under water by now?
  - exe34 2y ago
    > recall "models" telling us repeatedly we'd all be underwater by now. > The difference between the predictions only being whether we'd all have drowned 5, 10 or 25 years ago, etc that's very interesting, could you give a few links/DOIs?
    - robxorb 2y ago
      Sorry, I must've been mistaken, it does indeed turn out the deeply alarming future dangers of global... um, climate change... have never been reputably published anywhere. Eg: 10.1007/s10708-008-9127-y
      - defrost 2y ago
        The 2007 GeoJournal introduction you linked: An Inconvenient Truth and the scientists https://sci-hub.ru/10.1007/s10708-008-9127-y https://sci-hub.ru/10.1007/s10708-008-9127-y does not answer the question asked: Which models told us we'd be underwater by now?
        exe34 2y ago
        yeah it sounds like he pulled it out of his ass afterall.
        robxorb 2y ago
        The referenced article states the alarmist view presented in An Inconvenient Truth is scientifically valid. The claim made by Al Gore, well over a decade ago, was that all arctic ice would be gone within five years. If you can't reason about how that much could claim to happen in five years and now fifteen's elapsed, I'm not sure what to say.
        defrost 2y ago
        The question was Which models told us we'd be underwater by now? You claimed knowledge and have yet to name a single one. Al Gore is not a geophysical scientist and has published no peer reviewed papers in any GeoPhys | Climate journals so whatever a second rate US VP may have claimed in a film I certainly haven't watched is hardly relevant. Can you back your claim or not? Can you even name one climate model used in an IPCC report?
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - etc-hosts 2y ago
    For me, one of the best arguments that climate change is real is because insurance companies are jacking up insurance rates everywhere they might have exposure to more risk as a result of climate change. I think the floors of actuaries at the insurance companies know more than I do.
    - nrr 2y ago
      That's a pretty recent innovation. Hurricane Katrina was something of a wake up call in terms of claim severity. P&C reinsurers afterward really had to challenge the standards under which they developed their models.
bwb 2y ago
Can anyone comment on this article? " That the Gulf Stream is responsible for Europe's mild winters is widely known and accepted, but, as I will show, it is nothing more than the earth-science equivalent of an urban legend." https://www.americanscientist.org/article/the-source-of-europes-mild-climate https://www.americanscientist.org/article/the-source-of-euro... I could use some expert advice...
- zamfi 2y ago
  Not an expert, but taking these side by side...it seems reasonable to conclude that AMOC is (as that source states) one of several factors? Iceland, e.g., is warmer than Alaska, and that might change. Northern Europe in general is warmer than the PNW, despite the North Atlantic being smaller (and thus less buffering) than the North Pacific. Seems unreasonable to expect the UK to end up like Newfoundland, or Labrador, if the AMOC shuts off, but "colder" seems in the cards. Of course, all of this is completely armchair on my part.
- anonymousDan 2y ago
  Wow, thanks for that link. Super interesting, and somewhat reassuring after reading the other article! What would make it even more convincing is a good explanation for the cause of the previous ice age and how it affected north west Europe.
romaaeterna 2y ago
There was an article in Nature the other year about AMOC periodicity across a long term timescale. Apparently you get high temperatures, then instability, then a gulf stream reversal every few thousand years, followed by glaciers coming south. Long term temperature increase due to complex systems like AMOC could explain why we see measurable linear temperature increases starting in the 1880s, instead of the 1940s as CO2 forcing might predict, have historical evidence of extremely cold weather in classical Europe (frozen Rhine, etc.), and have evidence of warmer temperatures than today with the Holocene maximum about 8,000 years ago.
- admralprawn 2y ago
  [flagged]
- alexose 2y ago
  > measurable linear temperature increases starting in the 1880s instead of the 1940s Could you cite your sources on this one? Every graph I can find shows the linear increases starting in about 1920 (plus or minus a bit, depending on how you squint your eyes), and correlating very neatly with atmospheric CO2 concentrations. [1] https://www.metlink.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/200_years_no_error.png https://www.metlink.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/200_years... [2] https://qph.cf2.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-bbbf79f1dadb29616e78bb3b528c3358-pjlq https://qph.cf2.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-bbbf79f1dadb29616e78b... [3] https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Robert-Stavins/publication/279935551/figure/fig2/AS:351128274391042@1460726912432/Global-Temperature-and-Carbon-Dioxide-Concentrations-1880-2010-Notes-Global-annual.png https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Robert-Stavins/publicat... [4] https://berkeleyearth.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/AnnualPlot-2023-1.png https://berkeleyearth.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/AnnualP...
  - romaaeterna 2y ago
    The lake next door to my house has had ice-in ice-out dates measured by the local university using the same procedure for the past 170 years. Lake ice is an extremely good way to determine average temperature for a season, of course, as it's just a big mass that gets cold and warms up again. When you plot my lake, it's a solidly linear trend of fewer days of ice coverage ever since they began measuring it. The neat atmospheric CO2 correlation is presumably the same thing that has caused that same correlation to exist in pre-historic times: CO2 has been a correlated trailing indicator of global temperature through the entirety of Earth's history. If there has been a long-term global trend for Earth temperatures, like my little (not so little actually) lake seems to indicate, some of the assumptions that establish CO2 radiative forcing as a cause rather than an effect go out the window entirely. But don't take my word for it. Read this Nature paper, and add in the postulate that global temperature since the 1860s is some linear trend similar to my lake's temperature, and watch what comes out: https://www.nature.com/articles/srep21691 https://www.nature.com/articles/srep21691

61 points by jdnier 2y ago

http://archive.is/Dx7EG http://archive.is/Dx7EG

To save others from reading pages upon pages of fluff: The siblings spent two years refining their approach, doing more tests. Across a thousand runs, the model cranked through the temperature data and settled on a year. Sometimes the model spat out later dates. Sometimes earlier. The two scientists made a plot of the numbers and a neat cluster emerged. Yes—2057. But that’s just the middle point: In 95 percent of the model’s simulations, the AMOC tipped sometime between 2025 and 2095.

robxorb 2y ago
[flagged]
- johnchristopher 2y ago
  > I recall "models" telling us repeatedly we'd all be underwater by now. No, you don't. And googling for https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-e&q=climate+models+that+predicted+we%27d+all+be+under+water https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-e&q=climate+m... gives me that Quora question where people seem to agree https://www.quora.com/Did-climate-scientists-in-the-1980s-predict-a-1-meter-sea-level-rise-by-now https://www.quora.com/Did-climate-scientists-in-the-1980s-pr... Also: https://www.science.org/content/article/even-50-year-old-climate-models-correctly-predicted-global-warming https://www.science.org/content/article/even-50-year-old-cli... (Even 50-year-old climate models correctly predicted global warming Study debunks idea that older models were inaccurate) > Climate change doubters have a favorite target: climate models. They claim that computer simulations conducted decades ago didn't accurately predict current warming, so the public should be wary of the predictive power of newer models. Now, the most sweeping evaluation of these older models—some half a century old—shows most of them were indeed accurate. Now where are you on my list: > Quoting myself (again) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36619271 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36619271 : > - There's no climate change > - Climate change is okay and has no impact > - Climate change exists but it's due to natural causes > - Climate change exists but it's due to natural causes and its impacts are small > - Climate change exists but its impacts are good for us > - Climate change exists but we will adapt > - Climate change exists and its the activists' fault we didn't act because they scared us with their doomsday predictions > - Climate change exists and we shouldn't talk about it because it's scary and scared people are not productive members of society
  - MichaelNolan 2y ago
    The last two items of your list are interesting. I’ve seen people exhibit all the previous items but I’ve never seen anyone exhibit the last two of your list. I have however seen many people (online) state a “doomer” or an “optimist” view that goes like this: > “Climate change is real but there’s nothing we can do about it” > “Climate change is real but it’s being handled so we don’t need to worry about it” I think those two would better fit your list of “stages of climate change denial”
    - johnchristopher 2y ago
      > The last two items of your list are interesting. I’ve seen people exhibit all the previous items but I’ve never seen anyone exhibit the last two of your list. I heard the first one on the radio, it was in a debate/show about eco-anxiety. The second one I read it first on HN https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36618428 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36618428: > > > How about the psychological damage done by the fear mongering caused by these type of news regarding climate change? > > What about it? > You're not concerned about how having such a large percentage of population becoming basically useless due to psychological problems can trouble the future of mankind? > > I have however seen many people (online) state a “doomer” or an “optimist” view that goes like this: > > “Climate change is real but there’s nothing we can do about it” > > “Climate change is real but it’s being handled so we don’t need to worry about it” > I think those two would better fit your list of “stages of climate change denial” Ah, nice addition. Thanks ! I'll think about it before adding them. Originally the list displayed progressive steps (it's a process) but maybe there are some branching to illustrate.
    - blooalien 2y ago
      And then there's me: "Climate change is absolutely real and there's a lot we could do / have done / be doing about it, but we won't do it, because too many of us worship the filthy-rich monsters who created the problem (and then lied to keep it going), and will defend their right to destroy us all for "shareholder value" right up to the very end."
  - pcrh 2y ago
- scoofy 2y ago
  “We can’t know anything perfectly, and we’ve been wrong before, so why bother modeling anything” is the stock response from the anti-science propagandist. Argue for better models, argue for other models that reproduce similar results, but don’t argue for solipsism.
  - serial_dev 2y ago
    So many of these models are so unreliable for predicting anything (due to the complexity of the problem, lack of precise enough measurements, computing power, and 1000 other valid reasons) that as an individual, I'll treat them as tarot reading with some scientific handwaving. And even if this model is great, how can I tell it from all the other garbage articles? I find it strange that when we talk about replication crisis, It's all fair game and everyone sees that "science" is made up of fallible people and corrupt institutions, but when I don't schit my pants because Wired published a post about the siblings (omg, who cares), then suddenly I'm a anti science propagandist. I'm just a regular guy who disagrees with you on something.
    - borski 2y ago
      Nobody is suggesting you “schit [your] pants.” The point of this isn’t to scare you, but to share information about a new model that predicts new effects. Nobody ever said it was “the most accurate model that exists.” But without even looking at or understanding the model (did you?), you’ve already written it off as “tarot reading.” Certainly not the way I’d approach it, especially as the facts of the last decade or so (not models, but actual recorded data) indicate that the globe is definitely warming and sea levels are definitely rising and glaciers are definitely melting. How do I know? Well, data, but also talking to experts in Iceland (as an example). All of them, every single one, without exception, agreed global warming was happening. Not all of them agreed as to why it was happening, but that it was is no longer a question at all. They are out on these glaciers all the time. They have data going back many decades. Time lapses of the changes in the glaciers over the last 50-100 years. There isn’t really a question, anymore, as to whether the globe is warming; it is. What we do about that is entirely a different discussion, as is why it’s happening. But, you know, facts suck in the face of conspiracy theories and “doubt at all costs,” I guess. That’s my main issue with folks who show up and start yelling that we don’t know anything. We do. We know the globe is warming, significantly. Denying that solves nothing.
- orf 2y ago
  Which models, specifically, said we would be under water by now?
- exe34 2y ago
  > recall "models" telling us repeatedly we'd all be underwater by now. > The difference between the predictions only being whether we'd all have drowned 5, 10 or 25 years ago, etc that's very interesting, could you give a few links/DOIs?
  - robxorb 2y ago
    Sorry, I must've been mistaken, it does indeed turn out the deeply alarming future dangers of global... um, climate change... have never been reputably published anywhere. Eg: 10.1007/s10708-008-9127-y
    - defrost 2y ago
      The 2007 GeoJournal introduction you linked: An Inconvenient Truth and the scientists https://sci-hub.ru/10.1007/s10708-008-9127-y https://sci-hub.ru/10.1007/s10708-008-9127-y does not answer the question asked: Which models told us we'd be underwater by now?
      - exe34 2y ago
        yeah it sounds like he pulled it out of his ass afterall.
      - robxorb 2y ago
        The referenced article states the alarmist view presented in An Inconvenient Truth is scientifically valid. The claim made by Al Gore, well over a decade ago, was that all arctic ice would be gone within five years. If you can't reason about how that much could claim to happen in five years and now fifteen's elapsed, I'm not sure what to say.
        defrost 2y ago
        The question was Which models told us we'd be underwater by now? You claimed knowledge and have yet to name a single one. Al Gore is not a geophysical scientist and has published no peer reviewed papers in any GeoPhys | Climate journals so whatever a second rate US VP may have claimed in a film I certainly haven't watched is hardly relevant. Can you back your claim or not? Can you even name one climate model used in an IPCC report?
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- etc-hosts 2y ago
  For me, one of the best arguments that climate change is real is because insurance companies are jacking up insurance rates everywhere they might have exposure to more risk as a result of climate change. I think the floors of actuaries at the insurance companies know more than I do.
  - nrr 2y ago
    That's a pretty recent innovation. Hurricane Katrina was something of a wake up call in terms of claim severity. P&C reinsurers afterward really had to challenge the standards under which they developed their models.

bwb 2y ago

Can anyone comment on this article? " That the Gulf Stream is responsible for Europe's mild winters is widely known and accepted, but, as I will show, it is nothing more than the earth-science equivalent of an urban legend." https://www.americanscientist.org/article/the-source-of-europes-mild-climate https://www.americanscientist.org/article/the-source-of-euro... I could use some expert advice...

zamfi 2y ago
Not an expert, but taking these side by side...it seems reasonable to conclude that AMOC is (as that source states) one of several factors? Iceland, e.g., is warmer than Alaska, and that might change. Northern Europe in general is warmer than the PNW, despite the North Atlantic being smaller (and thus less buffering) than the North Pacific. Seems unreasonable to expect the UK to end up like Newfoundland, or Labrador, if the AMOC shuts off, but "colder" seems in the cards. Of course, all of this is completely armchair on my part.
anonymousDan 2y ago
Wow, thanks for that link. Super interesting, and somewhat reassuring after reading the other article! What would make it even more convincing is a good explanation for the cause of the previous ice age and how it affected north west Europe.

romaaeterna 2y ago

There was an article in Nature the other year about AMOC periodicity across a long term timescale. Apparently you get high temperatures, then instability, then a gulf stream reversal every few thousand years, followed by glaciers coming south. Long term temperature increase due to complex systems like AMOC could explain why we see measurable linear temperature increases starting in the 1880s, instead of the 1940s as CO2 forcing might predict, have historical evidence of extremely cold weather in classical Europe (frozen Rhine, etc.), and have evidence of warmer temperatures than today with the Holocene maximum about 8,000 years ago.

admralprawn 2y ago
[flagged]
alexose 2y ago
> measurable linear temperature increases starting in the 1880s instead of the 1940s Could you cite your sources on this one? Every graph I can find shows the linear increases starting in about 1920 (plus or minus a bit, depending on how you squint your eyes), and correlating very neatly with atmospheric CO2 concentrations. [1] https://www.metlink.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/200_years_no_error.png https://www.metlink.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/200_years... [2] https://qph.cf2.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-bbbf79f1dadb29616e78bb3b528c3358-pjlq https://qph.cf2.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-bbbf79f1dadb29616e78b... [3] https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Robert-Stavins/publication/279935551/figure/fig2/AS:351128274391042@1460726912432/Global-Temperature-and-Carbon-Dioxide-Concentrations-1880-2010-Notes-Global-annual.png https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Robert-Stavins/publicat... [4] https://berkeleyearth.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/AnnualPlot-2023-1.png https://berkeleyearth.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/AnnualP...
- romaaeterna 2y ago
  The lake next door to my house has had ice-in ice-out dates measured by the local university using the same procedure for the past 170 years. Lake ice is an extremely good way to determine average temperature for a season, of course, as it's just a big mass that gets cold and warms up again. When you plot my lake, it's a solidly linear trend of fewer days of ice coverage ever since they began measuring it. The neat atmospheric CO2 correlation is presumably the same thing that has caused that same correlation to exist in pre-historic times: CO2 has been a correlated trailing indicator of global temperature through the entirety of Earth's history. If there has been a long-term global trend for Earth temperatures, like my little (not so little actually) lake seems to indicate, some of the assumptions that establish CO2 radiative forcing as a cause rather than an effect go out the window entirely. But don't take my word for it. Read this Nature paper, and add in the postulate that global temperature since the 1860s is some linear trend similar to my lake's temperature, and watch what comes out: https://www.nature.com/articles/srep21691 https://www.nature.com/articles/srep21691