Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC)

[Johan Leopard51]

Originally Posted by derfy

Well, Gord, that certainly is some impressive science. But they could have just asked me and saved a lot of money.

11,000 years ago, when the last ice age maxed out, people were crossing the Bering Sea. Sea Level was down ~ 410 ft (that's 120,000 millimeters).

So, over the last 11,000 years, we have seen 125k/11k = 11 mm/year!

So the scientist are getting it about right. Get out the hip waders. But now, heck, we can measure acceleration! Now there's something to worry about - acceleration!

So, what's your forecast? When does the next cataclysmic Great Flood happen from all that acceleration?

By the way, I wish it would hurry up. My keel is bumping bottom coming into my favorite Inner Banks marina here in North Carolina when the wind blows from the South - and that's after they just finished dredging. Dang it! Four years ago I had all the water I needed in that channel. Measuring sea level is kinda tricky.

One difference is the Ice Age held a HUGE amount of water ‘above’ the high water mark, which is why water level was down so much. People reckon that Ice Age ended with asteroid/meteoroid strike causing very rapid melt. In “our” time last two thousand years, the rate of increase was much slower up to 1900 than it has been since.

Whatever the cause (fossil fuels, fairy farts, whatever), the reality is sea water rise is increasing and for several places (atoll islands for example) it is existential. As in - all the islanders will have to move somewhere else.

[derfy]

Originally Posted by Johan Leopard51

One difference is the Ice Age held a HUGE amount of water ‘above’ the high water mark, which is why water level was down so much. People reckon that Ice Age ended with asteroid/meteoroid strike causing very rapid melt. In “our” time last two thousand years, the rate of increase was much slower up to 1900 than it has been since.

Whatever the cause (fossil fuels, fairy farts, whatever), the reality is sea water rise is increasing and for several places (atoll islands for example) it is existential. As in - all the islanders will have to move somewhere else.

Reality is that the sea has been rising for over 10 thousands years, and will continue to rise until the next Ice Age. As the signs say in Colorado canyons: "In case of flood, climb to higher ground".

Having us believe we can (1) measure sea level acceleration to the nth degree, (2) forecast the date of future cataclysms, and (3) "solve" global physical processes that we have labeled as a "problem", is nothing but a means to increase funding for scientists and organizations who claim to be able "solve" this problem.

Announcing a major cataclysmic climate study the week before the US elections is also very telling. Do you really think that is happenstance? Really?

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by Johan Leopard51

...
Whatever the cause (fossil fuels, fairy farts, whatever), the reality is sea water rise is increasing and for several places (atoll islands for example) it is existential. As in - all the islanders will have to move somewhere else.

We are, currently, in an interglacial period [the Holocene] right now. It began at the end of the last glacial period, about 10,000 years ago.
The global average temperature was around 4°C cooler, during the last ice age, than it is today.

Since the mid 1800s, scientists have long suspected, that changes in the geometry of Earth’s orbit, are responsible for the coming, and going, of ice ages – the uncertainty has been over which orbital property is most important; Earth’s tilt angle, or variations in the planet's orbit.
Three distinct orbital cycles [Milankovitch cycles] interact, to change the distribution of incoming solar energy, in ways that can dramatically affect the Earth’s climate.
These include:
Precession: a 26,000-year shift in the orientation of Earth’s axis of rotation that affects how much summer sun is received at high latitudes (and shifting how much reaches the north vs south).
Obliquity: a 41,000-year change in the tilt of the Earth’s axis relative to the sun that changes how much sun is received during a year at the poles versus the equator.
Eccentricity: a 100,000-400,000 change in the shape of the Earth’s orbit around the sun that alters the length of the seasons and affects the importance of precession.

None of these cycles substantially changes the total amount of energy, reaching the Earth, from the sun. Rather, they mostly act to change the distribution of the sun’s energy [North vs South], across the surface of the Earth.

But, changing atmospheric concentrations of CO2, also, plays a key role in driving, both, cooling, during the onset of ice ages, and warming, at their end.

Of course, modern global warming stems from a clear cause: rising levels of CO2, and other greenhouse gases, from fossil fuel burning, cutting down forests, and other human activities.
And, in the past, rising CO2 levels, at the very, least magnified global warming, ushering in the relatively balmy, stable climate, sometimes called the "long summer" that has allowed human civilization to flourish.

Humanity has now raised global CO2 levels, by more than the rise from roughly 180 to 260 ppm, at the end of the last ice age, to well over 400 ppm [and still rising], albeit in a few hundred years, rather than over more than a few thousand years.

[boatman61]

Maybe it's time we stopped blowing things (countries) up left right and centre, along with all these military exercises.
Seems to me the increase ties in with the white man's acquisition of explosive and the intensive drive to increase it's power.
Gratuitous detonations around the world have never been assessed for their pollution nor the amount of dust they throw into the atmosphere.
Would be interesting to know the CO2 contribution/particulate distribution the 1 year of trouble in the Middle East has made with the detonation of billions of $$'s of US explosives that's been shipped out.. not to mention the Ukraine conflict...
Mind it does keep the US economy going..

[derfy]

Originally Posted by boatman61

Maybe it's time we stopped blowing things (countries) up left right and centre, along with all these military exercises.
Seems to me the increase ties in with the white man's acquisition of explosive and the intensive drive to increase it's power.
Gratuitous detonations around the world have never been assessed for their pollution nor the amount of dust they throw into the atmosphere.
Would be interesting to know the CO2 contribution/particulate distribution the 1 year of trouble in the Middle East has made with the detonation of billions of $$'s of US explosives that's been shipped out.. not to mention the Ukraine conflict...
Mind it does keep the US economy going..

CO2 is a smokescreen, diverting our attention and resources from the real threats to human health and nature posed by toxins entering our water, air, and food supply; toxins mined and and fabricated by Big Climate, Big Food, Big Pharma, and Big War. They'll keep distracting us with CO2 while they make their plastic, heavy toxic metals, chemical compounds, addictive additives, and biotech junk. Meanwhile, that evil CO2 (which keeps making the planet annoyingly more green, I've noticed) gets all the attention.

Exactly when is that CO2-induced climatic cataclysm coming? I missed the predicted date...conveniently out there over the horizon of our lifetimes?

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by boatman61

Maybe it's time we stopped blowing things (countries) up left right and centre, along with all these military exercises.
Seems to me the increase ties in with the white man's acquisition of explosive and the intensive drive to increase it's power.
Gratuitous detonations around the world have never been assessed for their pollution nor the amount of dust they throw into the atmosphere.
Would be interesting to know the CO2 contribution/particulate distribution the 1 year of trouble in the Middle East has made with the detonation of billions of $$'s of US explosives that's been shipped out.. not to mention the Ukraine conflict...

Although it doesn't get much attention, in the popular press, the effects of war, on the environment, have been studied extensively.

The use of explosive weapons in populated areas (EWIPA) is highly destructive, resulting in large numbers of civilian casualties, and causing massive damage to civilian infrastructure, and the environment.
A political declaration, on mitigating the humanitarian harm, caused by EWIPA, is currently being negotiated by governments, with Ireland leading the process.
The latest version, of the draft declaration [1], incorporates the issue of EWIPA’s negative environmental effects [reverberating effects], such as the contamination of air, soil, groundwater, and other resources.

[1] “Draft Political Declaration on Strengthening the Protection of Civilians from the Humanitarian Consequences that can arise from the use of Explosive Weapons with Wide Area Effects in Populated Areas”
➥ https://www.dfa.ie/media/dfa/ourrole...n-17032020.pdf

[1b] Comments by the International Committee of the Red Cross [ICRC]
➥ https://www.icrc.org/sites/default/f...d_feb_2021.pdf

“Tracking unaccounted greenhouse gas emissions due to the war in Ukraine since 2022" ~ by Rostyslav Bun et al
➥ https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...48969724000135

“... War-related GHG emissions [carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide] for the first 18 months of the war in Ukraine were 77 Megatons CO2-equivalent , with a relative uncertainty of +/−22 % [95 % confidence interval] ...”

“Environmental legacy of Explosive Weapons in Populated Areas” ~ UN Environmental Prgram [UNEP]
➥ https://www.unep.org/news-and-storie...opulated-areas

Originally Posted by UNEP

“November 6 marks the International Day for Preventing the Exploitation of the Environment in War and Armed Conflict. Curtailing the use of Explosive Weapons in Populated Areas (EWIPA) is a humanitarian priority due to increasing civilian deaths and injuries from armed conflict in urban settings and indirect environmental impacts, which are now recognized as an important dimension of their use...

... “Destruction of environment during conflicts not only affect public health directly in the immediate aftermath – through air and water pollution – but also affects long term recovery due to destruction of livelihood depending on environmental resources,” says Muralee Thummarukudy, Acting Head, Resilience to Disasters and Conflicts Global Support Branch...”

“MENU OF INDICATORS TO MEASURE THE REVERBERATING EFFECTS ON CIVILIANS FROM THE USE OF EXPLOSIVE WEAPONS IN POPULATED AREAS” ~ by CHRISTINA WILLE & ALFREDO MALARET BALDO, for the UN Institute for Disarmament Research [UNIDIR]
➥ https://unidir.org/files/2021-03/EWI...0-%20Final.pdf

“Pentagon Fuel Use, Climate Change, and the Costs of War” ~ by Neta C. Crawford
➥ https://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/...20Crawford.pdf

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by derfy

...
Exactly when is that CO2-induced climatic cataclysm coming? I missed the predicted date...conveniently out there over the horizon of our lifetimes?

That, may not be all you've missed.

[newhaul]

Well this thread drift has happened about normal most non boat specific threads usually drift after 3 pages .
Something it follows the pattern it will either end soon or come back to topic in 2 pages for a page then off into the weeds it goes again.

[GordMay]

At our current global pace of carbon emissions, the world will burn through its remaining “carbon budget” [the amount of pollution the world can afford to emit, and still meet its warming targets], by 2030.
Doing so would put the long-term goal, of keeping global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7°F), irrevocably out of reach.

In 2018, the IPCC found that a 1.5°C world would be overwhelmingly safer, than one that is 2 degrees Celsius (3.6°F) warmer, than the preindustrial era. At the time, scientists said humanity would have to zero out carbon emissions, by 2050, to meet the 1.5°C target, and by 2070 to avoid warming beyond 2°C.

Beyond 1.5°C of warming, humanity will begin to run up against “hard limits” to adaptation.
Temperatures will get too high, to grow many staple crops. Droughts will become so severe, that even the strongest water conservation measures can’t compensate. In a world that has warmed roughly 3°C (5.4°F), where humanity appears to be headed, the harsh physical realities of climate change will be deadly, for countless plants, animals, and people.

Recent research suggests the AMOC has already weakened, by around 15%, since the middle of the 20th century.
If this continues, it could have a major impact on the climate of the northern hemisphere, but particularly Europe. It may even lead to the cessation of arable farming, in the UK, for instance.
It may also reduce rainfall, over the Amazon basin, impact the monsoon systems in Asia, and, by bringing warm waters into the Southern Ocean, further destabilize ice, in Antarctica, and further accelerate global sea level rise.

“Atlantic ‘conveyor belt’ has slowed by 15% since mid-20th century”
➥ https://www.carbonbrief.org/atlantic...tieth-century/

“Observed fingerprint of a weakening Atlantic Ocean overturning circulation” ~ by Levke Caesar et al
➥ https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-018-0006-5

“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/s41586-018-0007-4

At what stage, and at what rise in global temperatures, will these tipping points be reached? No one is entirely sure. It may take centuries, millennia, or it could be imminent.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by GordMay

At our current global pace of carbon emissions, the world will burn through its remaining “carbon budget” [the amount of pollution the world can afford to emit, and still meet its warming targets], by 2030.
Doing so would put the long-term goal, of keeping global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7°F), irrevocably out of reach.

In 2018, the IPCC found that a 1.5°C world would be overwhelmingly safer, than one that is 2 degrees Celsius (3.6°F) warmer, than the preindustrial era. At the time, scientists said humanity would have to zero out carbon emissions, by 2050, to meet the 1.5°C target, and by 2070 to avoid warming beyond 2°C.

Beyond 1.5°C of warming, humanity will begin to run up against “hard limits” to adaptation.
Temperatures will get too high, to grow many staple crops. Droughts will become so severe, that even the strongest water conservation measures can’t compensate. In a world that has warmed roughly 3°C (5.4°F), where humanity appears to be headed, the harsh physical realities of climate change will be deadly, for countless plants, animals, and people.

Recent research suggests the AMOC has already weakened, by around 15%, since the middle of the 20th century.
If this continues, it could have a major impact on the climate of the northern hemisphere, but particularly Europe. It may even lead to the cessation of arable farming, in the UK, for instance.
It may also reduce rainfall, over the Amazon basin, impact the monsoon systems in Asia, and, by bringing warm waters into the Southern Ocean, further destabilize ice, in Antarctica, and further accelerate global sea level rise.

“Atlantic ‘conveyor belt’ has slowed by 15% since mid-20th century”
➥ https://www.carbonbrief.org/atlantic...tieth-century/

“Observed fingerprint of a weakening Atlantic Ocean overturning circulation” ~ by Levke Caesar et al
➥ https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-018-0006-5

“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/s41586-018-0007-4

At what stage, and at what rise in global temperatures, will these tipping points be reached? No one is entirely sure. It may take centuries, millennia, or it could be imminent.

Or could be never.

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by GordMay

Although it doesn't get much attention, in the popular press, the effects of war, on the environment, have been studied extensively.

The use of explosive weapons in populated areas (EWIPA) is highly destructive, resulting in large numbers of civilian casualties, and causing massive damage to civilian infrastructure, and the environment.
A political declaration, on mitigating the humanitarian harm, caused by EWIPA, is currently being negotiated by governments, with Ireland leading the process.
The latest version, of the draft declaration [1], incorporates the issue of EWIPA’s negative environmental effects [reverberating effects], such as the contamination of air, soil, groundwater, and other resources.

[1] “Draft Political Declaration on Strengthening the Protection of Civilians from the Humanitarian Consequences that can arise from the use of Explosive Weapons with Wide Area Effects in Populated Areas”
➥ https://www.dfa.ie/media/dfa/ourrole...n-17032020.pdf

[1b] Comments by the International Committee of the Red Cross [ICRC]
➥ https://www.icrc.org/sites/default/f...d_feb_2021.pdf

“Tracking unaccounted greenhouse gas emissions due to the war in Ukraine since 2022" ~ by Rostyslav Bun et al
➥ https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...48969724000135

“Environmental legacy of Explosive Weapons in Populated Areas” ~ UN Environmental Prgram [UNEP]
➥ https://www.unep.org/news-and-storie...opulated-areas



“MENU OF INDICATORS TO MEASURE THE REVERBERATING EFFECTS ON CIVILIANS FROM THE USE OF EXPLOSIVE WEAPONS IN POPULATED AREAS” ~ by CHRISTINA WILLE & ALFREDO MALARET BALDO, for the UN Institute for Disarmament Research [UNIDIR]
➥ https://unidir.org/files/2021-03/EWI...0-%20Final.pdf

“Pentagon Fuel Use, Climate Change, and the Costs of War” ~ by Neta C. Crawford
➥ https://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/...20Crawford.pdf

That's just echo chamber jaw jaw.. also I would not believe a word coming outa the Pentagon.. their truths are historically false..

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by boatman61

That's just echo chamber jaw jaw.. also I would not believe a word coming outa the Pentagon.. their truths are historically false..

To which "word coming outa the Pentagon" are you referring, as unbelievable?

FWIW: My last citation, “Pentagon Fuel Use ...”, was written by Neta C. Crawford*, for the Watson Institute for International & public Affairs, at Brown University. She is Montague Burton Chair, in International Relations, at the University of Oxford, and also holds a Professorial Fellowship at Balliol College. AFIK, she has no affiliation with the Pentagon.
* ➥ https://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/...eta-c-crawford

[boatman61]

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=wwzr9D...cG9sbHV0ZXI%3D

And this is just the US... not its proxies that it arms as well, or just dumps in Afghanistan etc for others to use instead.

[Johan Leopard51]

I really don’t buy the hype but I recognize physically the rise of in my country is called the admiralty line - spring high. I’m old but not ancient.

In my life at our four generation holiday home on tidal river it’s about 5 inches. Within my life the spring high will breach our bottom lawn next to jetty without a storm surge. Luckily the house is on next bank another 10 feet higher so not stressing.

There is absolutely no denying the increase even if debate about cause is never ending.

Me, I run a 3GWh a year factory about 72% off solar because it is with my storage also nearly 40% cheaper than grid power and in Africa more reliable. That it hugs bunnies and annoys fossil fans is just a bonus. We cannot imagine that extracting million year old coal/oil from the ground and burning it is a sustainable solution for anybody but the mine owner.

[derfy]

Originally Posted by GordMay

That, may not be all you've missed.

Gord, there it is, right on schedule ... name-calling! Well done.

So predictable. Might I suggest you enhance this by suggesting what I am missing .. maybe some misplaced brain cells, and an oar that's not in the water? Your name calling could use a bit more style and flare.

Or maybe I (and a few more folks) just "missed" the credible reason to fear the coming existential apocalypse, and "missed" its scientifically modeled date of arrival. That's all I've missed.