Is there a therefore? If we know it’s locked in we can start discussing the knock on effects that we know will happen as a consequence. It’s quite rare that climate science gets opportunities for solid predictions. I would guess that England and Northern Europe are in for colder winters starting in a decade but I’m not up to date on the predicted effects of collapse of the Atlantic currents.
There is a significant chance that "locked in" would be a best case scenario, as it suggests that we have a clue about what we have gotten our selves into.
I have done my best to teach myself how to understand all of the factors effecting our planets climate, and have looked at the sattelite feeds since day 2, on the internet, and I can very definitly say that we are in completly uncharted territory that is well outside any of the worst case modeles or predictions.What that means for our weather is unknown.and debatable, but certainly warmer, and less comfortable for most.
The real danger for us is connected with deep ocean warming, which while the physics is understood perfectly, there isn't enough data for a baseline and to monitor and predict changes.
Why do climate people write headlines like this? Everyone gets cynical and dismissive when they endure predictions like those made by Al Gore or Greta Thunberg. Even if the predictions are directionally correct, people remember phrases like "locked in" and assume that the entire science was broken. If the current only partially collapses or changes in a material way, everyone will say, "See, it wasn't locked in."
You can't keep people from being stupid via the language you use. People who have the reaction you describe would not magically "get it" if different language is used.
> it’s coming from a press office, not researchers
fwiw, the pre-print reads:
To define committed collapse, i.e. that past and unavoidable future emissions have already locked in collapse, we assume that global emissions cannot be mitigated from peak to net-zero any faster than 35 years.
...
The ‘2025 peak ensemble’ therefore quantifies the probability that AMOC collapse is already committed, i.e. past emission have already locked in the collapse by 2025;
Is there a therefore? If we know it’s locked in we can start discussing the knock on effects that we know will happen as a consequence. It’s quite rare that climate science gets opportunities for solid predictions. I would guess that England and Northern Europe are in for colder winters starting in a decade but I’m not up to date on the predicted effects of collapse of the Atlantic currents.
Pokeing the climate deniers in.the.eye.
There is a significant chance that "locked in" would be a best case scenario, as it suggests that we have a clue about what we have gotten our selves into. I have done my best to teach myself how to understand all of the factors effecting our planets climate, and have looked at the sattelite feeds since day 2, on the internet, and I can very definitly say that we are in completly uncharted territory that is well outside any of the worst case modeles or predictions.What that means for our weather is unknown.and debatable, but certainly warmer, and less comfortable for most. The real danger for us is connected with deep ocean warming, which while the physics is understood perfectly, there isn't enough data for a baseline and to monitor and predict changes.
https://www.ospo.noaa.gov/products/ocean/sst/contour/
https://nsidc.org/sea-ice-today
https://climatereanalyzer.org/
Why do climate people write headlines like this? Everyone gets cynical and dismissive when they endure predictions like those made by Al Gore or Greta Thunberg. Even if the predictions are directionally correct, people remember phrases like "locked in" and assume that the entire science was broken. If the current only partially collapses or changes in a material way, everyone will say, "See, it wasn't locked in."
You can't keep people from being stupid via the language you use. People who have the reaction you describe would not magically "get it" if different language is used.
If it’s a headline, it’s coming from a press office, not researchers. The “why” is the same as for any other journalism: to get clicks.
> it’s coming from a press office, not researchers
fwiw, the pre-print reads:
...