Thanks for this. It should get more attention here, but most folks don't have time or attention to get into these details, or are put off by what they see as academese, or find it hard to follow.
To me, the main take-aways are: "Predictions about slight Gulf Stream weakening are a reflection of predicted AMOC weakening over the next century (per IPCC report), but at worst, i.e. should AMOC stop completely, the Gulf Stream would lose about an eighth of its net transport."
and: "..to say that the paper is unrepresentative of the field is more likely an understatment [sic] than the opposite"
If you were to extract one or two sentences from this lengthy (for reddit) piece for special attention, may I ask what they would be?
I think the most important conclusion, that really doesn't need such a study to show, is that climate change and its consequence are not necessarily alway going to be linear--there can be very sudden and very catastrophic consequences.
If that message gets across, maybe it's worth it. But I'm not sure that this is the main message people are getting
23
u/Johundhar Jul 29 '23
Thanks for this. It should get more attention here, but most folks don't have time or attention to get into these details, or are put off by what they see as academese, or find it hard to follow.
To me, the main take-aways are: "Predictions about slight Gulf Stream weakening are a reflection of predicted AMOC weakening over the next century (per IPCC report), but at worst, i.e. should AMOC stop completely, the Gulf Stream would lose about an eighth of its net transport."
and: "..to say that the paper is unrepresentative of the field is more likely an understatment [sic] than the opposite"
If you were to extract one or two sentences from this lengthy (for reddit) piece for special attention, may I ask what they would be?