Atlantic Ocean circulation is weakest in at least 1,600 years ( 2/26/21 ) .

[OilReport99]

I don't see any 'bias" against the scientific method..

By ‘science’ we refer to the method of testing claims by observation and experimentation, or the body of knowledge acquired by such a method. Testability by repeatable observation and experimentation is a key characteristic of science. So, we must ask of the claims of any model, which of them have been observationally or experimentally demonstrated to actually support the model?

What I do see is a pushback against agenda-driven science, and a pushback against organizations that will not print papers that present evidence contradicting those prevailing orthodox theories.

Many times it's a lot worse than not printing papers. Academics, Scientists, and Researchers are forced out of Universities, publicly shamed for their "sin" of using the scientific method. This has now reached the field of Pure Mathematics, where axioms don't care about politics. Sad.

 

[sloinker]

I think consensus is needed to move science forward. That isn't to say that when there is contradictory evidence it shouldn't be weighed. There seems to be much pseudo-science and many baseless/unsupported claims floating around nowadays. I agree that the few that are out there have been mostly discounted by the mainstream. Maybe everyone needs to be somewhat more inclusive in examining others theories before discarding them for the junk science they may turn out to be, there may actually be something of value that is worth considering. So it is correct to assume that most minority conclusions are bought by the industry that is paying the bonuses. Pure science for the sake of science is becoming rarer, too many agendas.

 

[Dinoburner]

Change is constant, interpretations based on science while difficult is still better than assumptions. Don`t think humans will ever be able to ignore politics which is the ultimate peril.

 

[OilReport99]

I think consensus is needed to move science forward.

I didn't read the rest of your post. But I promise I will should you replace this aberration.

 

[kschachn]

I didn't read the rest of your post. But I promise I will should you replace this aberration.

It's downright frightening what people imagine passes for the scientific method.

 

[OilReport99]

interpretations based on science while difficult is still better than assumptions

Way to go, Aristotle!

 

[OilReport99]

It's downright frightening what people imagine passes for the scientific method.

I would like to upvote your post a billion times, but ain't got no time...

 

[spasm3]

I think consensus is needed to move science forward.

Pure science for the sake of science is becoming rarer, too many agendas.

The 2 do not go together.

 

[MolaKule]

I think consensus is needed to move science forward. That isn't to say that when there is contradictory evidence it shouldn't be weighed. There seems to be much pseudo-science and many baseless/unsupported claims floating around nowadays. I agree that the few that are out there have been mostly discounted by the mainstream. Maybe everyone needs to be somewhat more inclusive in examining others theories before discarding them for the junk science they may turn out to be, there may actually be something of value that is worth considering. So it is correct to assume that most minority conclusions are bought by the industry that is paying the bonuses. Pure science for the sake of science is becoming rarer, too many agendas.

Why is it correct to assume that minority conclusions are part of some corporate conspiracy? This is purely an assertion without any evidence to support it and a common smokescreen to squelch contradictory arguments.

Contradictory evidence against an orthodox theory cannot be assumed to be part of a conspiracy. It could be that scientific evidence against an orthodox theory is valid in terms of the scientific method. Many simply do not want to except the conclusions of contradictory evidence because it goes against their widely held beliefs.

 

[IveBeenRued]

I feel that all this talk of “consensus” in the scientific community are just great examples of confirmation bias and out-group derogation. As an observer, I do find it fascinating.

 

[OilReport99]

Why is it correct to assume that minority conclusions are part of some corporate conspiracy?

 

[sloinker]

Why is it correct to assume that minority conclusions are part of some corporate conspiracy? This is purely an assertion without any evidence to support it and a common smokescreen to squelch contradictory arguments.

Contradictory evidence against an orthodox theory cannot be assumed to be part of a conspiracy. It could be that scientific evidence against an orthodox theory is valid in terms of the scientific method. Many simply do not want to except the conclusions of contradictory evidence because it goes against their widely held beliefs.

That is exactly what I said in the inverse.

 

[OilReport99]

That is exactly what I said in the inverse.

No, you did not. You said “I think consensus is needed to move science forward.”

And that’s nonsense and lunacy.

 

[kstanf150]

Not sure about your local weatherman
But where I live they can’t predict the weather correctly for 10 days in a row. So I have little faith than anybody knows what happen 1600 years ago with any degree of being close to right.
Most statements like what happen 1600 years ago falls into the SWAG category

 

[Rhymingmechanic]

Just curious, is there any mention anywhere in the paper for the theory of natural cyclic variations verses the supposed contributions by modern man?

Secondly, how could anyone know what these fossilized creatures "preferred" in terms of their environment before internment? Could these fossilized creatures have not simply and naturally adapted to their environments before fossilization?

What we have here is supposition based upon prior supposition - ad infinitum. I.e., they are assuming one theory supports another theory higher up the hypothetical chain when no single theory in the chain can stand on its own.

The basic conclusion of both studies is that the Atlantic current system is the weakest it has been during the studied periods. One focuses on improving the accuracy of climate models as they relate to the currents and observed sea surface temperatures. The other asserts that the current slowdown needs to be understood better.

The Caesar article talks about sediment grain size and three specific organisms they looked for. I think I'm getting an abbreviated version of the article, so I haven't found a detailed explanation of why they looked for those specific organisms. Perhaps the writer for Scientific American had a more complete version of the article, considering what they said about creatures thriving in colder or warmer conditions in the quoted paragraph.

For me, the SA article was helpful in explaining the Atlantic current system. In layman's terms, it compared the two articles, their common findings, and their differences. The overall tone, in the SA article and the studies, is one of trying to accurately understand the factors that affect those currents and in turn, the effects of the currents changing--on things like sea level, lobster and cod fisheries, and the location of the tropical rain band. The scientific papers are more than I really want to study further on a Saturday night, but I just read both fairly quickly. Links to the abstracts are supplied below in case you have journal access through a library.

Scientific American 2018
https://www.scientificamerican.com/...antics-circulation-is-weakest-in-1-600-years/

2018 Papers, abstracts only without a subscription

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-018-0007-4 (Mostly about improving climate model accuracy)
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-018-0006-5 (Mentions the ocean core samples)

2021 article that must have started this thread
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41561-021-00699-z

 

[mrsilv04]

How about we let China and India take the lead on this one, since they're the biggest part of problem, and least likely to do a thing about it. Oh, right.... Silly me. We need lots of fear mongering instead.

 

[Jetronic]

bunnies don't lay eggs, unless the easter bunny is actually an easter platypus... another hypothesis...

 

[MolaKule]

The basic conclusion of both studies is that the Atlantic current system is the weakest it has been during the studied periods. One focuses on improving the accuracy of climate models as they relate to the currents and observed sea surface temperatures. The other asserts that the current slowdown needs to be understood better.

The Caesar article talks about sediment grain size and three specific organisms they looked for. I think I'm getting an abbreviated version of the article, so I haven't found a detailed explanation of why they looked for those specific organisms. Perhaps the writer for Scientific American had a more complete version of the article, considering what they said about creatures thriving in colder or warmer conditions in the quoted paragraph...

Ok, but that does not answer these questions which should be answered in a scientific framework:

Just curious, is there any mention anywhere in the paper for the theory of natural cyclic variations verses the supposed contributions by modern man?

Secondly, how could anyone know what these fossilized creatures "preferred" in terms of their environment before internment? Could these fossilized creatures have not simply and naturally adapted to their environments before fossilization?

What we have here is supposition based upon prior supposition - ad infinitum. I.e., they are assuming one theory supports another theory higher up the hypothetical chain when no single theory in the chain can stand on its own.

 

[Rhymingmechanic]

Ok, but that does not answer these questions which should be answered in a scientific framework:

I'm not a scientist or a science writer, so I posted links to the studies. It would be interesting to know what you make of them, and how they answer the questions above.

 

[Drew7a]

Climate is always changing and has from the beginning of time.

In my neck of the woods the great lakes and the 10s of thousands of lakes were formed by glacial retreat (Climate change). I wonder how the news/alarmists would report that today?

Our gravel is classified Galcial till. We have had 3 ice ages in this area and the advancing and retreating of the glaciers carved the landscape.

We also monitor isostatic rebound and our Canadian neighbors are experiencing quite a bit of it as they are in some of the newest ground that has been free of the glacial weight.

So does Climate change? yes It does constantly no matter how much money you spend it will continue to change.