AMOC Might Be About to Collapse

[Swamp ash]

37 minutes ago, ReeferMac said:

I agree with you in sentiment @Swamp ash, but disagree with the conclusion.

In any system with lots of inputs, altering any one, will have an impact on the system. I think we are in agreement there?

Where I find we disagree, is the connection drawn between human activity and catastrophic collapse of said system (whether that connection is direct and linear, or complex and convoluted). 

I mean, everyone knows that if a butterfly in Japan flaps its wings just right, there will be a typhoon in California, right?

Personally I think of us humans as the ants building mounds in my pasture. Sure, you can argue they are making an impact on their environment (the mound disrupts water flow, other insects, plants, animals, etc.).. but then my Exmark comes by and you realize they're just ants.

To think we're actually impacting the galactic history of the 3rd rock from the sun is some hubris. 

While it may be logically argued current conditions are measured to be different than.... we're looking at a forest with a microscope and trying to draw conclusions about the entire field of botany.

We and all of our fossil fuels were here eons ago; asteroids and solar radiation aside, Earth is a pretty closed system. Carbon is sequestered, carbon is released (Photosynthesis/Krebs cycle). If you think giving more of your money to a bunch of bureaucrats is going to change anything about that, you are free to do so. But don't think for one second that gives you the right to preach to me or anyone else about a field of science we as humans don't know dick about. It wasn't but 500 years ago our best and brightest thought the earth was flat and the center of our universe. Today those same minds think they've got something as complicated as global weather patterns figured out (and quote records going back those same 500 years - wonder if they've been adjusted for heliocentricity?)

Thanks for the well-considered post

However, please think about this:

Earth's initial atmosphere was CO-rich (temp and sea level was higher - we know this from geological evidence)

However, the evolution of photosynthetic  marine algae proliferated across the planet and we had an oxygenation event (we know this again from geological evidence; chemistry changes with sediments; fossils; etc).  The fact is, myriads of colonial-living single-celled organisms (stromatolites) permanently changed the climate.

Subsequently, profound changes in biology are met with physical changes (i.e. the advent of the coal forests again released much oxygen).  If these lower forms of biology have had such a major effect to the earth system, then consider what our activities contribute (as an aside: humans in fact move more sediment, each year, than all the rivers in the world combined)

We are releasing fossil carbon that has indeed been sequestered (biologically, mind you),  for millions to billions of years (via hydrocarbons, coal and carbonate rocks used for cement). This rapid re-introduction of carbon does indeed have an effect . We are also altering natural sequestration and even changing the solar balance by reducing albedo (planetary reflectance) meaning we absorb even more solar energy.

All this is consistent with the realization that climate is the product of solar, planetary and biological factors.

Edited August 17, 2021 by Swamp ash

[ReeferMac]

4 hours ago, Swamp ash said:

 The fact is, myriads of colonial-living single-celled organisms (stromatolites) permanently changed the climate. 

Agreed.

Over millenia.

Charts that turn like a hockey stick in 1972 are sure signs of a scam.

[Swamp ash]

12 minutes ago, ReeferMac said:

Agreed.

Over millenia.

Charts that turn like a hockey stick in 1972 are sure signs of a scam.

No, it took much longer for microbes to alter atmospheric chemistry, but then again, they're tiny and sessile.

 We have huge energy demands being large, extremely mobile and requiring vast resources to maintain society.  

Our exponentially-expanding population ought to produce exponential graphs!  Likewise the rapid increase in global living standards and thus, the increase in per capita resource demand.

 

[Daniel]

On 8/6/2021 at 12:09 PM, TennesseeCamper said:

They have talked about this theory before, long before the glaciers started turning into ice water. 
It seems like it might be closer to reality now.

This old earth has been through so many catastrophic changes. Life on earth has been nearly wiped out and started over more than once. We have only been here for the blink of eye. The earth will go through many more remakes, reformations.  
Like the title says in the science fiction book by George R Stewart ,  “Earth Abides” . 
 

The earth will. We wont.

[Daniel]

On 8/8/2021 at 7:39 AM, ReeferMac said:

but to deny the fact that it is the truth isn't just ignorant, its harmful.

Ironic lol

[Daniel]

On 8/10/2021 at 7:57 AM, gregintenn said:

I don't understand the arrogance of people who think they are important enough to be able to change things like the weather.

No single person is important enough.  8 billion energy dependent hungry people with all their farming and livestock are able to change things like the weather.

[gregintenn]

9 minutes ago, Daniel said:

No single person is important enough.  8 billion energy dependent hungry people with all their farming and livestock are able to change things like the weather.

If you say so, boss.

[Quavodus]

I realize people need to be more conscious about energy consumption and pollution. But, we all know, no matter what we do as Americans some Countries aren't gonna care at all. 

[Daniel]

57 minutes ago, Quavodus said:

I realize people need to be more conscious about energy consumption and pollution. But, we all know, no matter what we do as Americans some Countries aren't gonna care at all. 

It's not even so much we as americans when it comes to pollution.  It is corporations.  The whole thing about it being up to individuals was created by an ad campaign paid for by polluting companies to shift the blame.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keep_America_Beautiful#Criticism

Heather Rogers, creator of the 2005 documentary film Gone Tomorrow. The Hidden Life of Garbage and book of the same name,[13] classifies Keep America Beautiful as one of the first greenwashing corporate fronts, alleging that the group was created in response to Vermont's 1953 attempt to legislate a mandatory deposit to be paid at point of purchase on disposable beverage containers and banning the sale of beer in non-refillable bottles.[14][15]

Keep America Beautiful's narrow focus on litter, and description of the modern concept of litter, is seen as an attempt to divert an extended producer responsibility from the industries that manufacture and sell disposable products to the consumers who improperly dispose of the related non-returnable wrappers, filters, and beverage containers.[13]

Elizabeth Royte, author of Garbage Land, describes Keep America Beautiful as a "masterful example of corporate greenwash", writing that in contrast to its anti-litter campaigns, it ignores the potential of recycling legislation and resists changes to packaging.[16]

The tobacco industry developed programs with Keep America Beautiful that focused on cigarette litter solutions acceptable to the tobacco industry such as volunteer clean-ups and ashtrays, instead of smokefree policies at parks and beaches.[17] The tobacco industry has funded Keep America Beautiful[17] and similar organizations internationally.[18]|


https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/plastics-industry-insiders-reveal-the-truth-about-recycling/

 

[TennesseeCamper]

2 hours ago, Daniel said:

The earth will. We wont.

Exactly!