There have been dozens of studies indicating issues with AMOC, but because the latest one has yet to be peer reviewed we should do nothing and ignore all the warning signs
IDK, maybe just this once we act early. What’s the worst that happens, we reduce pollution a bit? We invest too much into scientific research?
I get that it’s easy to to jump to conclusions online but you literally have me all wrong. I work in researching carbon sequestration. As already mentioned in a different comment reply, I’m happy that people are researching AMOC and the consequences its weakening will bring. But, there’s a very big difference between saying, “AMOC is weakening and may collapse at some point if things don’t change”, and “we’re already past the point of no return”. One is a helpful statement, the other just drums of despair, which isn’t a helpful emotion for tackling climate change.
If you look at the pre-print, its written to my eyes in a somewhat unscientific manner relative to most other climate publications, and so I kind of doubt its rigor. If you want an in-depth review, https://www.annualreviews.org/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-marine-040324-024822 presents an update article on why exactly making this sort of conclusion is difficult.
There have been dozens of studies indicating issues with AMOC, but because the latest one has yet to be peer reviewed we should do nothing and ignore all the warning signs
IDK, maybe just this once we act early. What’s the worst that happens, we reduce pollution a bit? We invest too much into scientific research?
I get that it’s easy to to jump to conclusions online but you literally have me all wrong. I work in researching carbon sequestration. As already mentioned in a different comment reply, I’m happy that people are researching AMOC and the consequences its weakening will bring. But, there’s a very big difference between saying, “AMOC is weakening and may collapse at some point if things don’t change”, and “we’re already past the point of no return”. One is a helpful statement, the other just drums of despair, which isn’t a helpful emotion for tackling climate change.
If you look at the pre-print, its written to my eyes in a somewhat unscientific manner relative to most other climate publications, and so I kind of doubt its rigor. If you want an in-depth review, https://www.annualreviews.org/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-marine-040324-024822 presents an update article on why exactly making this sort of conclusion is difficult.