Changes in Atlantic currents

[jimbunyard]

Not taking a stand either way (I like animal protein as well as the next guy, and despise cloth shoes), but I'm pretty sure plants require no protein at all to produce that which the contain.

And to keep things 'properly anthropocentric', it should be kept in mind corollarily that human protein requirements decrease fairly linearly from birth to physical maturation, from about 1.5 g/kg at birth to about .75 g/kg at 19, and pretty much remain static (except for pregnant women) thereafter.

https://www.google.com/search?q=Huma...hrome&ie=UTF-8

[bouncycastle]

The 200,000 Viking people who 1000 years ago went to colonize Greenland and were growing wheat and enjoying the very warm climate the dinosaur flatulence' that cuased a warming and climate change
The Viking then caused with cutting down trees to make boats some 1000 years ago had to listen to the prophet's of doom in skirts

Whoa to you changing the climate with your big boats you must leave the helpless trees alone or a big freeze will come to destroy you and what do you know a big freeze came wiped out those decadent Viking living in Greenland as it was too cold to grow any wheat

So hear yee the VIKING banshee GRETA has returned to say your big SUV and big beef cows with big flatulence's methane emissions will cause the big bogggie man too bla bla bla

Moral the story always check under the skirt a Viking sometimes they got extra parts so the rumours say from the skirt watcher web sites


NortH Atlantic conveyer I do not think is worried or changing course for some BLA BLA in skirts

Now if you want to talk about the 2 million world wide underwater Volcanoes they found
recently warming up the sea water versus the 20000 they thought existed that might change s some things more than some viking skirts

[jimbunyard]

Whoa --- somebody needs to return to their bouncy castle before the reality of gravity leads them to emit cries of woe...

[tp12]

Originally Posted by jtsailjt

When you use the term “denier” to describe someone who disagrees with you, you are choosing to demean them rather than to put forward a convincing argument for your POV. Besides, I actually don’t think hardly anyone denies that climates everywhere are changing. Always have and always will. I also think it’s likely that the changes humans have made have something to do with it, but that’s along with lots of natural phenomenon we have absolutely no control over that has nothing to do with human activity.

So, since we pretty much all agree that climate is changing, what can we do about it? I think that’s where the great disagreement exists. Some seem to think cutting back on CO2 emissions will help, but since CO2 stays in the atmosphere for 400-1000 years, none of us or our great, great, great….grandchildren will see the benefits, if any, of any sacrifices we make to decrease our carbon footprints. You driving a Prius will NOT benefit your grandchildren! Also, there are billions of poor people in the world who need access to cheap energy in order to achieve even a lifestyle that most of us would consider to be barely tolerable and for the time being, fossil fuels are the cheapest forms of energy available. Therefore, I’m in favor of continuing to develop all the alternative forms of energy and changing laws to allow nuclear plants to be built once again because it’s the only energy source that has a realistic chance to replace fossil fuels in the foreseeable future. When technology allows, a migration away from burning fossil fuels will occur, but it’s a ways off and until then we need to accept that it’s the reality we are stuck with. Since the climate IS unavoidably changing, our greatest focus needs to be on adapting to the changes as needed, just as all creatures and humans have done for eons. Pointing fingers and making foolish pseudo scientific claims and thinking we can changing our climate via government policy are all just negative distractions that divide us. We all need to take a step back and let actual scientists do their thing, and accept that we may occasionally need to make some inconvenient changes in our lives in order to adapt to our ever changing climate.

The term denier is given to those who deny the science. It’s an accurate term.

In Australia the nuclear argument has reared its head again but its simply not required when, in Australia, renewables and storage are cheaper, faster to build and can meet our energy needs.

Additionally, nuclear takes a long time to build such that it’s not a new generation option to keep warming under 1.5c

[GordMay]

Many comprehensive climate models don't predict a total AMOC shut down, for another 250-300 years, under current emissions, though they predict a bevy of negative consequences, as the currents slowly slide toward collapse.

A key component of the global oceanic circulatory system, which includes the Atlantic’s Gulf Stream, is at its weakest in more than 1,600 years, a recent study [1] has found.
It’s a trend which could exacerbate the effects of climate change, such as rising sea levels on the US East Coast, and disrupted weather patterns across North America, Europe and north Africa, including the increase in frequency of extreme weather events, like flooding, drought, and winter storms.

Unfortunately, research [2], published Aug. 5, 2021, in Nature Climate Change, suggests that the AMOC currents are weakening, due to manmade climate change; and if nothing is done to prevent it, they may collapse completely.
This study [2] used eight datasets, looking at surface temperatures, and salinity, in the North Atlantic, over a period of 150 years, and found global warming was driving the destabilization.
Boers recognizes, in his study, that he and other scientists still don't know, for certain if, and when, the current might collapse.

Global weather patterns are critically linked to the circulation, and its transport of heat and nutrients, around the planet. A collapse of this system would result in significant and abrupt changes, including fast sea level rise, more extreme winters in Western Europe, and disruptions to monsoon systems in the tropics.
It could also have a cascading effect and destabilize other components of the Earth's climate system, including the Antarctic ice sheet and the Amazon rainforest.

However unlikely, the impacts of passing an AMOC tipping point would be huge, so it is best viewed [at least] as a “low probability, high impact” scenario.

[1] “Anomalously weak Labrador Sea convection and Atlantic overturning during the past 150 years” ~ by David J. R. Thornalley et al
➥ https://www.nature.com/articles/s415...er=www.cnn.com

[2] “Observation-based early-warning signals for a collapse of the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation” ~ by Niklas Boers
➥ https://www.nature.com/articles/s415...change-history

[RaymondR]

Originally Posted by tp12

The term denier is given to those who deny the science. It’s an accurate term.

In Australia the nuclear argument has reared its head again but its simply not required when, in Australia, renewables and storage are cheaper, faster to build and can meet our energy needs.

Additionally, nuclear takes a long time to build such that it’s not a new generation option to keep warming under 1.5c

That's nonsensical and a prime example of the mythology the left perpetrates. Go to the Hydro Tasmania site and have a look at what it required to make wind and solar work for 1,300 people living a non industrial, rural lifestyle and multiply it by ten million.

[tp12]

Originally Posted by RaymondR

That's nonsensical and a prime example of the mythology the left perpetrates. Go to the Hydro Tasmania site and have a look at what it required to make wind and solar work for 1,300 people living a non industrial, rural lifestyle and multiply it by ten million.

What’s left or right about power generation? What’s nonsensical is cherry picking one generator, with very little detail around it or even saying how old it is, and thinking that’s all that’s possible across all renewables and storage technologies. It’s a bit silly

All you need to do is read some reports on the CSIRO and AEMO sites and you’ll see that what I’ve said is true.

[tp12]

This guy wrote a great article on it:
“Professor Vassilios G. Agelidis is the Director of the Centre for Energy Research and Policy Analysis (CERPA) and Professor in Power Engineering in the School of Electrical Engineering and Telecommunications at the University of New South Wales.

Professor Agelidis is one of Australia's leading authorities on efficient electricity grid technologies and power engineering. He has done extensive research in the field of 'smarter' grid infrastructure and sustainable energy systems incorporating solar and wind energy sources.”

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2010-12-..._nuclear/41882

[tp12]

Here’s the CSIRO on renewables + storage being the cheapest form of new generation in Australia:

https://www.csiro.au/en/news/news-re...r-in-australia

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by tp12

This guy wrote a great article on it: ...
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2010-12-..._nuclear/41882

Indeed, Vassilios Agelidis argues persuasively [and explains why] that: "it is in fact too late [for Australia] and the nuclear option has already passed Australia by."
"Too late for nuclear” ~ by Vassilios Agelidis
➥ https://www.abc.net.au/news/2010-12-..._nuclear/41882

[GordMay]

Ocean currents are the continuous, predictable, directional movement of seawater, driven by gravity, wind (Coriolis Effect), the sun (solar energy), tides, and water density (salinity). Ocean water moves in two directions: horizontally and vertically. Horizontal movements are referred to as currents, while vertical changes are called upwellings or downwellings. This abiotic system is responsible for the transfer of heat, variations in biodiversity, and Earth’s climate system.

The ‘global conveyer belt’ is a connected system of deep, and surface currents, that circulate around the globe, on a 1000 year time span. This global set of ocean currents is a critical part of Earth’s climate system, as well as the ocean nutrient, and carbon dioxide cycles.

Here’s a good [basic] tutorial on Ocean Currents [the topic of this thread]:

“Ocean Currents and Climate” ~ The University of Southern California
➥ https://earth.usc.edu/~stott/Catalina/Oceans.html
➥ https://earth.usc.edu/~stott/Catalina/Deepwater.html

[RaymondR]

Originally Posted by tp12

What’s left or right about power generation? What’s nonsensical is cherry picking one generator, with very little detail around it or even saying how old it is, and thinking that’s all that’s possible across all renewables and storage technologies. It’s a bit silly

All you need to do is read some reports on the CSIRO and AEMO sites and you’ll see that what I’ve said is true.

I don't need to read a clutch of papers by a bunch of desk bound academics to know the deficiencies of what the "renewables" crowd propose.

I live on a boat and have lived exclusively on a boat for the last twenty years during which I have had two wind generators (useless damned things) a plethora of solar panels (I live in dread of hail storms) and have been a major financial supported of a number of battery manufacturers.

You cannot run a decent civilization on wind and solar and it's pure fantasy to claim you can.

As to the argument of nuclear being too expensive, get on the internet and compare the prices of electricity in European countries and look at who impoert from where?

[tp12]

Originally Posted by RaymondR

I don't need to read a clutch of papers by a bunch of desk bound academics to know the deficiencies of what the "renewables" crowd propose.



I live on a boat and have lived exclusively on a boat for the last twenty years during which I have had two wind generators (useless damned things) a plethora of solar panels (I live in dread of hail storms) and have been a major financial supported of a number of battery manufacturers.



You cannot run a decent civilization on wind and solar and it's pure fantasy to claim you can.



As to the argument of nuclear being too expensive, get on the internet and compare the prices of electricity in European countries and look at who impoert from where?

Your lay opinion matters more to you than actual experts in the field. Ok.

[RaymondR]

Originally Posted by tp12

Your lay opinion matters more to you than actual experts in the field. Ok.

Professionally, I am an expert in a couple of fields and know the folly the status sometimes leads one into.

[tp12]

Originally Posted by RaymondR

Professionally, I am an expert in a couple of fields and know the folly the status sometimes leads one into.

You can dress it up however you like but ultimately you’re wilfully ignoring expert opinion, refusing even to read it, in favour of your own, lay opinion.

I could explain what that is but you’d get upset [emoji16]