They're not exactly sure when this will happen, but one thing they know for sure is the Gulf Stream has definitely lost its stability and is in the process of slowing. A collapse will mean the end of the world as we know it, and it is expected to happen quickly.

https://amp.theguardian.com/environment/2021/aug/05/climate-crisis-scientists-spot-warning-signs-of-gulf-stream-collapse

On Thu, 5 Aug 2021 13:56:23 -0700 (PDT), Fred Bloggs
<bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com> wrote:

>They're not exactly sure when this will happen, but one thing they know for sure is the Gulf Stream has definitely lost its stability and is in the process of slowing. A collapse will mean the end of the world as we know it, and it is expected to happen quickly.
>
>https://amp.theguardian.com/environment/2021/aug/05/climate-crisis-scientists-spot-warning-signs-of-gulf-stream-collapse

I went to Safeway and there was no horseradish! Might as well be dead.

I guess if the gulf stream dies, there won't be any shrimp to make
coctail sauce for, so maybe it's OK.

http://www.co2science.org/education/reports/co2benefits/MonetaryBenefitsofRisingCO2onGlobalFoodProduction.pdf

On Thursday, August 5, 2021 at 1:56:26 PM UTC-7, Fred Bloggs wrote:
> They're not exactly sure when this will happen, but one thing they know for sure is the Gulf Stream has definitely lost its stability and is in the process of slowing. A collapse will mean the end of the world as we know it, and it is expected to happen quickly.
>
> https://amp.theguardian.com/environment/2021/aug/05/climate-crisis-scientists-spot-warning-signs-of-gulf-stream-collapse

This article says:
"It is not known what level of CO2 would trigger an AMOC collapse"
but we have to take action nonetheless - what hubris!

Fred Bloggs wrote:
> They're not exactly sure when this will happen, but one thing they
> know for sure is the Gulf Stream has definitely lost its stability
> and is in the process of slowing. A collapse will mean the end of the
> world as we know it, and it is expected to happen quickly.
>
> https://amp.theguardian.com/environment/2021/aug/05/climate-crisis-scientists-spot-warning-signs-of-gulf-stream-collapse

When they are sure when it will happen then we'll have a testable
condition which will render this disprovable and therefore scientific,
but not until then.

--
Defund the Thought Police

On Friday, August 6, 2021 at 11:25:19 AM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
> On Thursday, August 5, 2021 at 1:56:26 PM UTC-7, Fred Bloggs wrote:
> > They're not exactly sure when this will happen, but one thing they know for sure is the Gulf Stream has definitely lost its stability and is in the process of slowing. A collapse will mean the end of the world as we know it, and it is expected to happen quickly.
> >
> > https://amp.theguardian.com/environment/2021/aug/05/climate-crisis-scientists-spot-warning-signs-of-gulf-stream-collapse
> This article says:
> "It is not known what level of CO2 would trigger an AMOC collapse"
> but we have to take action nonetheless - what hubris!

Flyguy imagines that the US could survive a rerun of the Younger Dryas

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Younger_Dryas

That was the last time the Gulf Stream stopped flowing and it lasted 1300+/-10 years. It's odd that the Guardian piece doesn't mention it, but English language science journalism isn't great.

The precautionary principle means that anybody sane would go to a lot of trouble to make sure that it didn't happen, once they understood the nature of the risk (which Flyguy doesn't).

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

On Thursday, August 5, 2021 at 7:01:52 PM UTC-7, Tom Del Rosso wrote:
> Fred Bloggs wrote:
> > They're not exactly sure when this will happen, but one thing they
> > know for sure is the Gulf Stream has definitely lost its stability
> > and is in the process of slowing. A collapse will mean the end of the
> > world as we know it, and it is expected to happen quickly.
> >
> > https://amp.theguardian.com/environment/2021/aug/05/climate-crisis-scientists-spot-warning-signs-of-gulf-stream-collapse

> When they are sure when it will happen then we'll have a testable
> condition which will render this disprovable and therefore scientific,
> but not until then.

Lots of attitude there, but no common sense. 'Sure when it will happen' is like
asking for infinite precision; once you get upper and lower limits (one week, one millenium)
you already know 'when'. As for disprovable, that's what you want in an hypothesis, it isn't
relevant when a model makes the useful prediction that justifies its existence.

A lake in WA state was getting more sewage than was healthy, and its oxygen-depletion death
was predicted, SO our local governments formed a coalition to reroute that waste, and clean
up the lake. It worked. That doesn't mean the prediction wasn't scientific, because TESTING
a prediction is uninteresting, unless it tests a (questionable, uncertain, untested, controversial) hypothesis.

Scientific predictions are sometimes warnings of things we can prevent.

Read about it here
<https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/26309073-the-uses-of-ecology>

On Thursday, August 5, 2021 at 10:01:52 PM UTC-4, Tom Del Rosso wrote:
> Fred Bloggs wrote:
> > They're not exactly sure when this will happen, but one thing they
> > know for sure is the Gulf Stream has definitely lost its stability
> > and is in the process of slowing. A collapse will mean the end of the
> > world as we know it, and it is expected to happen quickly.
> >
> > https://amp.theguardian.com/environment/2021/aug/05/climate-crisis-scientists-spot-warning-signs-of-gulf-stream-collapse
> When they are sure when it will happen then we'll have a testable
> condition which will render this disprovable and therefore scientific,
> but not until then.

Traditionally the computational models have underestimated the AMOC current effects by a factor of 10 as compared to ocean buoy measurement data.
The tipping point has as already been exceeded for some time now, and the they're really watching the transition to the slower/ weaker state.

Here is a little more on the same paper:
https://www.livescience.com/gulf-stream-close-to-collapse

Title should be ":collapsing" because that what it is. And now that it's started, it's irreversible.

Here's some of what they have in place to monitor this complicated mess of interfering factors.
https://www.aoml.noaa.gov/phod/docs/McCarthy_etal_ProgOcean_2015.pdf

>
>
> --
> Defund the Thought Police

On Fri, 6 Aug 2021 10:20:30 -0700 (PDT), Fred Bloggs
<bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Thursday, August 5, 2021 at 10:01:52 PM UTC-4, Tom Del Rosso wrote:
>> Fred Bloggs wrote:
>> > They're not exactly sure when this will happen, but one thing they
>> > know for sure is the Gulf Stream has definitely lost its stability
>> > and is in the process of slowing. A collapse will mean the end of the
>> > world as we know it, and it is expected to happen quickly.
>> >
>> > https://amp.theguardian.com/environment/2021/aug/05/climate-crisis-scientists-spot-warning-signs-of-gulf-stream-collapse
>> When they are sure when it will happen then we'll have a testable
>> condition which will render this disprovable and therefore scientific,
>> but not until then.
>
>Traditionally the computational models have underestimated the AMOC current effects by a factor of 10 as compared to ocean buoy measurement data.
>The tipping point has as already been exceeded for some time now, and the they're really watching the transition to the slower/ weaker state.
>
>Here is a little more on the same paper:
>https://www.livescience.com/gulf-stream-close-to-collapse
>
>Title should be ":collapsing" because that what it is. And now that it's started, it's irreversible.
>
>Here's some of what they have in place to monitor this complicated mess of interfering factors.
>https://www.aoml.noaa.gov/phod/docs/McCarthy_etal_ProgOcean_2015.pdf
>
>

It's hard to argue against a thousand years of automated buoy data.

On Friday, August 6, 2021 at 10:51:43 AM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:

> It's hard to argue against a thousand years of automated buoy data.

And, arguing against data is silly as well as hard. How do you
know it's hard, silly boy?

On Friday, August 6, 2021 at 1:51:43 PM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:
> On Fri, 6 Aug 2021 10:20:30 -0700 (PDT), Fred Bloggs
> <bloggs.fred...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Thursday, August 5, 2021 at 10:01:52 PM UTC-4, Tom Del Rosso wrote:
> >> Fred Bloggs wrote:
> >> > They're not exactly sure when this will happen, but one thing they
> >> > know for sure is the Gulf Stream has definitely lost its stability
> >> > and is in the process of slowing. A collapse will mean the end of the
> >> > world as we know it, and it is expected to happen quickly.
> >> >
> >> > https://amp.theguardian.com/environment/2021/aug/05/climate-crisis-scientists-spot-warning-signs-of-gulf-stream-collapse
> >> When they are sure when it will happen then we'll have a testable
> >> condition which will render this disprovable and therefore scientific,
> >> but not until then.
> >
> >Traditionally the computational models have underestimated the AMOC current effects by a factor of 10 as compared to ocean buoy measurement data.
> >The tipping point has as already been exceeded for some time now, and the they're really watching the transition to the slower/ weaker state.
> >
> >Here is a little more on the same paper:
> >https://www.livescience.com/gulf-stream-close-to-collapse
> >
> >Title should be ":collapsing" because that what it is. And now that it's started, it's irreversible.
> >
> >Here's some of what they have in place to monitor this complicated mess of interfering factors.
> >https://www.aoml.noaa.gov/phod/docs/McCarthy_etal_ProgOcean_2015.pdf
> >
> >
> It's hard to argue against a thousand years of automated buoy data.

The AMOC isn't going to put out a sign I'M COLLAPSING INTO WEAK SLOW STATE.

On Fri, 6 Aug 2021 11:43:42 -0700 (PDT), Fred Bloggs
<bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Friday, August 6, 2021 at 1:51:43 PM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:
>> On Fri, 6 Aug 2021 10:20:30 -0700 (PDT), Fred Bloggs
>> <bloggs.fred...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >On Thursday, August 5, 2021 at 10:01:52 PM UTC-4, Tom Del Rosso wrote:
>> >> Fred Bloggs wrote:
>> >> > They're not exactly sure when this will happen, but one thing they
>> >> > know for sure is the Gulf Stream has definitely lost its stability
>> >> > and is in the process of slowing. A collapse will mean the end of the
>> >> > world as we know it, and it is expected to happen quickly.
>> >> >
>> >> > https://amp.theguardian.com/environment/2021/aug/05/climate-crisis-scientists-spot-warning-signs-of-gulf-stream-collapse
>> >> When they are sure when it will happen then we'll have a testable
>> >> condition which will render this disprovable and therefore scientific,
>> >> but not until then.
>> >
>> >Traditionally the computational models have underestimated the AMOC current effects by a factor of 10 as compared to ocean buoy measurement data.
>> >The tipping point has as already been exceeded for some time now, and the they're really watching the transition to the slower/ weaker state.
>> >
>> >Here is a little more on the same paper:
>> >https://www.livescience.com/gulf-stream-close-to-collapse
>> >
>> >Title should be ":collapsing" because that what it is. And now that it's started, it's irreversible.
>> >
>> >Here's some of what they have in place to monitor this complicated mess of interfering factors.
>> >https://www.aoml.noaa.gov/phod/docs/McCarthy_etal_ProgOcean_2015.pdf
>> >
>> >
>> It's hard to argue against a thousand years of automated buoy data.
>
>The AMOC isn't going to put out a sign I'M COLLAPSING INTO WEAK SLOW STATE.

Fred's not either.

whit3rd wrote:
>
> A lake in WA state was getting more sewage than was healthy, and its
> oxygen-depletion death
> was predicted, SO our local governments formed a coalition to reroute
> that waste, and clean
> up the lake. It worked. That doesn't mean the prediction wasn't
> scientific, because TESTING
> a prediction is uninteresting, unless it tests a (questionable,
> uncertain, untested, controversial) hypothesis.

They could predict that because fluids flow through pipes predictably,
not chaotically.

--
Defund the Thought Police

Fred Bloggs wrote:
>
> Traditionally the computational models have underestimated the AMOC
> current effects by a factor of 10 as compared to ocean buoy
> measurement data. The tipping point has as already been exceeded for
> some time now, and the they're really watching the transition to the
> slower/ weaker state.

How does this compare to the magnetic field reversal for doom prospects?

> Here is a little more on the same paper:
> https://www.livescience.com/gulf-stream-close-to-collapse
>
> Title should be ":collapsing" because that what it is. And now that
> it's started, it's irreversible.
>
> Here's some of what they have in place to monitor this complicated
> mess of interfering factors.
> https://www.aoml.noaa.gov/phod/docs/McCarthy_etal_ProgOcean_2015.pdf

Sometimes I watch a video that explains the most beautiful math proof,
and I'm tempted to share it, but then realize it's moot in the face of
doom.

--
Defund the Thought Police

On Fri, 6 Aug 2021 18:38:26 -0400, "Tom Del Rosso"
<fizzbintuesday@that-google-mail-domain.com> wrote:

>Fred Bloggs wrote:
>>
>> Traditionally the computational models have underestimated the AMOC
>> current effects by a factor of 10 as compared to ocean buoy
>> measurement data. The tipping point has as already been exceeded for
>> some time now, and the they're really watching the transition to the
>> slower/ weaker state.
>
>How does this compare to the magnetic field reversal for doom prospects?
>
>
>> Here is a little more on the same paper:
>> https://www.livescience.com/gulf-stream-close-to-collapse
>>
>> Title should be ":collapsing" because that what it is. And now that
>> it's started, it's irreversible.
>>
>> Here's some of what they have in place to monitor this complicated
>> mess of interfering factors.
>> https://www.aoml.noaa.gov/phod/docs/McCarthy_etal_ProgOcean_2015.pdf
>
>Sometimes I watch a video that explains the most beautiful math proof,
>and I'm tempted to share it, but then realize it's moot in the face of
>doom.

Fear springs eternal in the human wuss.

On Thursday, August 5, 2021 at 8:13:32 PM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
> On Friday, August 6, 2021 at 11:25:19 AM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
> > On Thursday, August 5, 2021 at 1:56:26 PM UTC-7, Fred Bloggs wrote:
> > > They're not exactly sure when this will happen, but one thing they know for sure is the Gulf Stream has definitely lost its stability and is in the process of slowing. A collapse will mean the end of the world as we know it, and it is expected to happen quickly.
> > >
> > > https://amp.theguardian.com/environment/2021/aug/05/climate-crisis-scientists-spot-warning-signs-of-gulf-stream-collapse
> > This article says:
> > "It is not known what level of CO2 would trigger an AMOC collapse"
> > but we have to take action nonetheless - what hubris!
> Flyguy imagines that the US could survive a rerun of the Younger Dryas
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Younger_Dryas
>
> That was the last time the Gulf Stream stopped flowing and it lasted 1300+/-10 years. It's odd that the Guardian piece doesn't mention it, but English language science journalism isn't great.
>
> The precautionary principle means that anybody sane would go to a lot of trouble to make sure that it didn't happen, once they understood the nature of the risk (which Flyguy doesn't).
>
> --
> SL0WMAN, Sydney

SL0WMAN is a member of the FIRE, aim, ah maybe we're ready club.

On Friday, August 6, 2021 at 11:43:45 AM UTC-7, Fred Bloggs wrote:
> On Friday, August 6, 2021 at 1:51:43 PM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:
> > On Fri, 6 Aug 2021 10:20:30 -0700 (PDT), Fred Bloggs
> > <bloggs.fred...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > >On Thursday, August 5, 2021 at 10:01:52 PM UTC-4, Tom Del Rosso wrote:
> > >> Fred Bloggs wrote:
> > >> > They're not exactly sure when this will happen, but one thing they
> > >> > know for sure is the Gulf Stream has definitely lost its stability
> > >> > and is in the process of slowing. A collapse will mean the end of the
> > >> > world as we know it, and it is expected to happen quickly.
> > >> >
> > >> > https://amp.theguardian.com/environment/2021/aug/05/climate-crisis-scientists-spot-warning-signs-of-gulf-stream-collapse
> > >> When they are sure when it will happen then we'll have a testable
> > >> condition which will render this disprovable and therefore scientific,
> > >> but not until then.
> > >
> > >Traditionally the computational models have underestimated the AMOC current effects by a factor of 10 as compared to ocean buoy measurement data.
> > >The tipping point has as already been exceeded for some time now, and the they're really watching the transition to the slower/ weaker state.
> > >
> > >Here is a little more on the same paper:
> > >https://www.livescience.com/gulf-stream-close-to-collapse
> > >
> > >Title should be ":collapsing" because that what it is. And now that it's started, it's irreversible.
> > >
> > >Here's some of what they have in place to monitor this complicated mess of interfering factors.
> > >https://www.aoml.noaa.gov/phod/docs/McCarthy_etal_ProgOcean_2015.pdf
> > >
> > >
> > It's hard to argue against a thousand years of automated buoy data.
> The AMOC isn't going to put out a sign I'M COLLAPSING INTO WEAK SLOW STATE.

They will after the glaciers put out the WE'RE RETREATING sign.

On Saturday, August 7, 2021 at 8:27:57 AM UTC+10, Tom Del Rosso wrote:
> whit3rd wrote:
> >
> > A lake in WA state was getting more sewage than was healthy, and its oxygen-depletion death was predicted, SO our local governments formed a coalition to reroute that waste, and clean up the lake. It worked. That doesn't mean the prediction wasn't scientific, because TESTING a prediction is uninteresting, unless it tests a (questionable, uncertain, untested, controversial) hypothesis.
>
> They could predict that because fluids flow through pipes predictably, not chaotically.

If the Reynolds number for the flow through a pie is less than about 2400, the flow is laminar, rather than turbulent (which is to say chaotic).

The kind of pipes that carry water into and out of lakes are big enough that Reynolds number is way above 2400 - small bore central heating system are small bore because laminar flow is quieter than turbulent flow. Get the pipe diameter up 19mm and it isn't.

The water flow through big pipes may be turbulent but it is perfectly predictable for all practical purposes. When I was working on a vortex shedding flow meter at Kent Instruments in the early 1970's we were getting 0.1% accuracies, limited mainly by the precision of the weight gauges where we measured the ton or so of water that went through the flow meter is about half an hour.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

On Saturday, August 7, 2021 at 8:38:35 AM UTC+10, Tom Del Rosso wrote:
> Fred Bloggs wrote:
> >
> > Traditionally the computational models have underestimated the AMOC
> > current effects by a factor of 10 as compared to ocean buoy
> > measurement data. The tipping point has as already been exceeded for
> > some time now, and the they're really watching the transition to the
> > slower/ weaker state.
>
> How does this compare to the magnetic field reversal for doom prospects?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Younger_Dryas

is all about the last time the Gulf Stream stopped flowing. Geologists knew all about it long before they realised that it had been caused by 1300 year interruption on the flow of the Gulf Stream. Magnetic field reversals don't seem be associated with the same kind of dramatic differences.

<snipped Fred's gloss>

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

On Saturday, August 7, 2021 at 9:48:55 AM UTC+10, John Larkin wrote:
> On Fri, 6 Aug 2021 18:38:26 -0400, "Tom Del Rosso"
> <fizzbin...@that-google-mail-domain.com> wrote:
>
> >Fred Bloggs wrote:

<snip>

> >Sometimes I watch a video that explains the most beautiful math proof,
> >and I'm tempted to share it, but then realize it's moot in the face of
> >doom.
>
> Fear springs eternal in the human wuss.

Ignorant idiots like John Larkin don't know enough to realise that some threats are real. If you know a bit more than he does you can realise that quite often you can take precautions that make the incipient disaster less disastrous, or maybe even prevent it.

Stopping Greenland's ice sheet from melting may be in the too hard basket. John Larkin doesn't seem to have noticed that it is happening now (as the GRACE satellites have been telling us for some time now).

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

On Saturday, August 7, 2021 at 10:47:23 AM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
> On Friday, August 6, 2021 at 11:43:45 AM UTC-7, Fred Bloggs wrote:
> > On Friday, August 6, 2021 at 1:51:43 PM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:
> > > On Fri, 6 Aug 2021 10:20:30 -0700 (PDT), Fred Bloggs
> > > <bloggs.fred...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > >On Thursday, August 5, 2021 at 10:01:52 PM UTC-4, Tom Del Rosso wrote:
> > > >> Fred Bloggs wrote:
> > > >> > They're not exactly sure when this will happen, but one thing they
> > > >> > know for sure is the Gulf Stream has definitely lost its stability
> > > >> > and is in the process of slowing. A collapse will mean the end of the
> > > >> > world as we know it, and it is expected to happen quickly.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > https://amp.theguardian.com/environment/2021/aug/05/climate-crisis-scientists-spot-warning-signs-of-gulf-stream-collapse
> > > >> When they are sure when it will happen then we'll have a testable
> > > >> condition which will render this disprovable and therefore scientific,
> > > >> but not until then.
> > > >
> > > >Traditionally the computational models have underestimated the AMOC current effects by a factor of 10 as compared to ocean buoy measurement data.
> > > >The tipping point has as already been exceeded for some time now, and the they're really watching the transition to the slower/ weaker state.
> > > >
> > > >Here is a little more on the same paper:
> > > >https://www.livescience.com/gulf-stream-close-to-collapse
> > > >
> > > >Title should be ":collapsing" because that what it is. And now that it's started, it's irreversible.
> > > >
> > > >Here's some of what they have in place to monitor this complicated mess of interfering factors.
> > > >https://www.aoml.noaa.gov/phod/docs/McCarthy_etal_ProgOcean_2015.pdf
> > > >
> > > >
> > > It's hard to argue against a thousand years of automated buoy data.
> >
> > The AMOC isn't going to put out a sign I'M COLLAPSING INTO WEAK SLOW STATE.
>
> They will after the glaciers put out the WE'RE RETREATING sign.

Flyguy hasn't seen any of the before and after pictures. Here's one - 1941 versus 2004.

https://climate.nasa.gov/climate_resources/4/graphic-dramatic-glacier-melt/

As signs go, this is on the larger side.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

On Friday, August 6, 2021 at 4:48:55 PM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:
> On Fri, 6 Aug 2021 18:38:26 -0400, "Tom Del Rosso"
> <fizzbin...@that-google-mail-domain.com> wrote:
>
> >Fred Bloggs wrote:

> >> Traditionally the computational models have underestimated the AMOC
> >> current effects by a factor of 10 as compared to ocean buoy
> >> measurement data. The tipping point has as already been exceeded for
> >> some time now, and the they're really watching the transition to the
> >> slower/ weaker state.

> >How does this compare to the magnetic field reversal for doom prospects?

> Fear springs eternal in the human wuss.

You don't need to worry about 'the human'; he's tiny. The Atlantic ocean, however,
is big enough to overwhelm you, and it makes good sense to worry about THAT.

What has the Gulf Stream done for you lately? If you don't know, you'll
be hit unawares when it stops.

On Sat, 7 Aug 2021 21:13:27 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On Friday, August 6, 2021 at 4:48:55 PM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:
>> On Fri, 6 Aug 2021 18:38:26 -0400, "Tom Del Rosso"
>> <fizzbin...@that-google-mail-domain.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Fred Bloggs wrote:
>
>
>> >> Traditionally the computational models have underestimated the AMOC
>> >> current effects by a factor of 10 as compared to ocean buoy
>> >> measurement data. The tipping point has as already been exceeded for
>> >> some time now, and the they're really watching the transition to the
>> >> slower/ weaker state.
>
>> >How does this compare to the magnetic field reversal for doom prospects?
>
>> Fear springs eternal in the human wuss.
>
>You don't need to worry about 'the human'; he's tiny. The Atlantic ocean, however,
>is big enough to overwhelm you, and it makes good sense to worry about THAT.

It never makes good sense to worry. Even less when there's nothing you
can do about it. Less yet when the threat is flakey simulations.

But whimper and cower if you enjoy it.

--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc

The best designs are necessarily accidental.

On Saturday, August 7, 2021 at 9:23:52 PM UTC-7, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
> On Sat, 7 Aug 2021 21:13:27 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >On Friday, August 6, 2021 at 4:48:55 PM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:
> >> On Fri, 6 Aug 2021 18:38:26 -0400, "Tom Del Rosso"
> >> <fizzbin...@that-google-mail-domain.com> wrote:

> >> >How does this compare to the magnetic field reversal for doom prospects?
> >
> >> Fear springs eternal in the human wuss.
> >
> >You don't need to worry about 'the human'; he's tiny. The Atlantic ocean, however,
> >is big enough to overwhelm you, and it makes good sense to worry about THAT.

> It never makes good sense to worry. Even less when there's nothing you
> can do about it. Less yet when the threat is flakey simulations.

Oh, that kind of thinking will get you halfway through a minefield.
Better plans are the ones that get you all the way.

On Sunday, August 8, 2021 at 12:23:52 AM UTC-4, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
> On Sat, 7 Aug 2021 21:13:27 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >On Friday, August 6, 2021 at 4:48:55 PM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:
> >> On Fri, 6 Aug 2021 18:38:26 -0400, "Tom Del Rosso"
> >> <fizzbin...@that-google-mail-domain.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Fred Bloggs wrote:
> >
> >
> >> >> Traditionally the computational models have underestimated the AMOC
> >> >> current effects by a factor of 10 as compared to ocean buoy
> >> >> measurement data. The tipping point has as already been exceeded for
> >> >> some time now, and the they're really watching the transition to the
> >> >> slower/ weaker state.
> >
> >> >How does this compare to the magnetic field reversal for doom prospects?
> >
> >> Fear springs eternal in the human wuss.
> >
> >You don't need to worry about 'the human'; he's tiny. The Atlantic ocean, however,
> >is big enough to overwhelm you, and it makes good sense to worry about THAT.
> It never makes good sense to worry. Even less when there's nothing you
> can do about it. Less yet when the threat is flakey simulations.
>
> But whimper and cower if you enjoy it.

It often hits me when some of the more psychotic posters here rant and rave their nonsense just how irrational they are. The weird part of Larkin's posts is how he has to deprecate the opinions of others. While he often whines about others not wanting to actually discuss his unreasoned arguments (when they actually do respond with reasoned arguments) he can't stop himself from describing their logic as fear and cowering.

It is a fool indeed who does not fear things that can kill, even if they are not pointing the barrel of their guns directly at you at any given moment.. The gun barrels of AGW are pointed at our children and grand-children for sure even if not directly at us oldsters, el viejo. Which is worse, recognizing a danger and fearing it, or hiding one's head in the sand and pretending it's not there?

--

Rick C.

- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

On Sunday, August 8, 2021 at 2:23:52 PM UTC+10, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
> On Sat, 7 Aug 2021 21:13:27 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >On Friday, August 6, 2021 at 4:48:55 PM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:
> >> On Fri, 6 Aug 2021 18:38:26 -0400, "Tom Del Rosso"
> >> <fizzbin...@that-google-mail-domain.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Fred Bloggs wrote:
> >
> >
> >> >> Traditionally the computational models have underestimated the AMOC
> >> >> current effects by a factor of 10 as compared to ocean buoy
> >> >> measurement data. The tipping point has as already been exceeded for
> >> >> some time now, and the they're really watching the transition to the
> >> >> slower/ weaker state.
> >
> >> >How does this compare to the magnetic field reversal for doom prospects?
> >
> >> Fear springs eternal in the human wuss.
> >
> >You don't need to worry about 'the human'; he's tiny. The Atlantic ocean, however,
> >is big enough to overwhelm you, and it makes good sense to worry about THAT.
>
> It never makes good sense to worry.

If your grasp of reality is as weak as John Larkin's this may be true. If you can understand what is going on in the outside world, it can be sensible to anticipate problems you can see coming, and suspect might be worrying when they finally arrive.

> Even less when there's nothing you can do about it.

Political action to force politicians to take society wide action to to slow down climate change hasn't been all that successful so far, but the effects of climate change are becoming more obvious, not that John Larkin is paying enough attention to notice.

> Less yet when the threat is flakey simulations.

John Larkin thinks that all simulations are as flakey as his. Things like record breaking heat-waves and forest fires aren't actually simulations, but if your brain has been addled by enough climate change denial propaganda you can write it all off as "extreme weather".

> But whimper and cower if you enjoy it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greta_Thunberg

doesn't do a lot of whimpering and cowering. It's not part of the usual repertoire of people dealing with incipient disasters, but John Larkin has a fertile imagination.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney