It sure is a good thing that the science is settled.
Otherwise a conflicting headline such as this from a peer reviewed paper published Feb 15 would be highly problematic
https://os.copernicus.org/articles/17/285/2021/ https://os.copernicus.org/articles/17/285/2021/
For anyone who doesn't care to read the paper. Chuck's apocalyptic story from the Guardian claims that the AMOC is weakening due to (you"ll never guess), global warming. And that this weakness is unprecedented in 1000 years.
The paper I linked published at the same time says no weakening for the past 30 years. And further states that we only have data back to 2005, everything before that relies on models(where have we seen those before).
How is a layman supposed to know which science to "believe" in?
Otherwise a conflicting headline such as this from a peer reviewed paper published Feb 15 would be highly problematic
A 30-year reconstruction of the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation shows no decline
For anyone who doesn't care to read the paper. Chuck's apocalyptic story from the Guardian claims that the AMOC is weakening due to (you"ll never guess), global warming. And that this weakness is unprecedented in 1000 years.
The paper I linked published at the same time says no weakening for the past 30 years. And further states that we only have data back to 2005, everything before that relies on models(where have we seen those before).
How is a layman supposed to know which science to "believe" in?
Comment