151–160 of 324 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
If by "they" you mean thermometers, sure. I don't need to do anything more than look at temperature readings to see how the climate is changing. I also see that it's clearly an exponential graph. We've already reached the 1.5 degree threshold the Paris Agreement was supposed to avoid, we have done fuck all to avoid it. The next 1.5 degrees will come much faster and the next 1.5 after that faster still. At that point…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Question for the community: how does one navigate such uncertainty? Not climate scientist, but researcher in ML (another highly hyped and arguably more noisy field). After Bourbon, the hard truth is expertise + don't. Unfortunately journals/conferences/venues are an extremely noisy mechanism which in general aren't realistically much better than arxiv (at least over here). Peer review isn't journals/conferences, it…
Can you explain what Bourbon is? People are making one-off references to it but I can't find a search query that results in anything relevant to climate or scientific scandals
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's mentions a potential collapse as early as 2025. More precisely 2025-2095. That is this century and it's accurate to say 2025 is imminent.
Yes, but I - and probably you - will die sometime between 2025 and 2095. I wouldn't say that therefore our deaths are imminent.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
critical thinking skills, don't believe everything that you see, perform your own independent investigation of truth.
> critical thinking skills, don't believe everything that you see, perform your own independent investigation of truth. How would one possibly do that here?
Also, I don't have access to a supercomputer (ok, well, I do, but I can't both keep my day job and also use it for re-running climate models when I have a question I want to ask myself about them).
People say "critical thinking" and "do your own research" a lot, and I always wonder what the fuck they think "research" means. Apparently not what I think it means! Or perhaps they do not need sleep, do not have to work for a living, do not have family, have access to huge teams of assistants, and own a world-class supercomputer to help satiate their skepticism, in which case, good for them :)
I’m a physical oceanographer. While I have only skimmed this article I would like to make two quick comments. 1) The AMOC is one of the most studied parts of the world ocean and predictions about its collapse have been made since Stommel in 1961. I think in general any study on its imminent collapse should be taken with a grain of salt and it would be wise to wait for further replication and the consensus of the comm…
You want to both use your credentials to be taken seriously in your posts, but also you want to avoid too much scrutiny of who you are.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You are completely correct I regret that word choice now. I was rushing to comment because I felt it was important to provide context on AMOC collapse scholarship.
Memento mori: top comment made the same mistake[1], your contributions reinforced the top comment, and your separate individual reply is the second comment. Rushing to comment has deep effects on HN, the threading incentivizes appending to the top comments rather than replying. This will now be a philosophical debate about scientific trust for hours just because people assume the article says "collapse is happening s…
I see your point that harping on this fact is perhaps boring and repetitive so I apologize for that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Are you comparing Stommel's Box model to Bower's recent work? I would argue the latter is more "expressive" though yes, it depends on measurements we weren't collecting in the 60s.
No I am just noting that the AMOC bistability literature is decades long.
I right read about AMOC back in 1997 while in university. It was fascinating and frightening back then. Still relevant today. It would be sad if it did actually end up happening in my lifetime, but humans are notoriously bad at reacting to bad things that might happening in the future - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons. We tend to only really react once the bad thing has happened.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
If by "they" you mean thermometers, sure. I don't need to do anything more than look at temperature readings to see how the climate is changing. I also see that it's clearly an exponential graph. We've already reached the 1.5 degree threshold the Paris Agreement was supposed to avoid, we have done fuck all to avoid it. The next 1.5 degrees will come much faster and the next 1.5 after that faster still. At that point…
Of course it's going to increase as we continue to come out of the last ice age.
It's being blown way out of proportion though to fear-monger.
And don't get me started on Europe and their fake Paris Climate Agreement. They just wanted money from the US. If they were serious they wouldn't have shut down their nuclear reactors and got hooked on Russian gas / Iranian oil. Only the US has reduced emissions while increasing energy output.