But they did it specifically to downplay concerns that they purposefully misrepresented to be about total collapse, when even the parent comment merely and correctly expressed concerns about the current being altered, perhaps as it was when Europe was plunged into the Little Ice Age a few hundred years ago causing terrible famines and extreme cold. To attempt to reframe those concerns as being only about 100% shutdown of the current is an egregious and fallacious strawman of the argument.

But even aside from that, as I said, their own references do not support their implication that the concerns are not appropriate for generations. Just because a study is three years old doesn’t mean that the cause for concern it might raise can be dismissed. There is a clear scientific consensus that thermohaline cycle disruption is a real threat to humanity, with potential for catastrophe well before 2300, and yet reading only the comment I critiqued, one would never know that. That is extremely problematic in a discussion like this one, and I stand by my critique.

And yet you used it to imply that there was no reason for any concern whatsoever, even though conditions well before a complete collapse would still be disastrous and catastrophic. That is misleading at worst, and bad science at best.

Your attitude and tone in lines like this one,

>That excerpt is from a study which is nearly three years old, genius

Is not appropriate here. If your goal is to actually engage people in an educational and scientific manner, you are failing quite badly.

A good clarification, thank you. However, that commenter is very clearly implying that there is no concern to be had at all before 2300, which is plainly not what the relevant studies have found. Significant dangers exist well before total shutdown of the current, and it’s misleading at best to imply that the concern is only relevant if the collapse is complete.

Literally not even what your own quoted excerpt from elsewhere in this thread states that, so why are you posting this? What do you think is meant by your own quoted portion which states,

>In the present study, the AMOC collapse reverses the warming seen in the smooth climate change scenarios, generating an average fall in temperature of 3.4 °C by 2080, accompanied by a substantial reduction in rainfall (−123 mm during the growing season.

Why are you deliberately and confidently misrepresenting the science on this, in multiple parts of this thread?

Literally not even what your own quoted excerpt from elsewhere in this thread states that, so why are you posting this? What do you think is meant by your own quoted portion which states,

>In the present study, the AMOC collapse reverses the warming seen in the smooth climate change scenarios, generating an average fall in temperature of 3.4 °C by 2080, accompanied by a substantial reduction in rainfall (−123 mm during the growing season.

Why are you deliberately and confidently misrepresenting the science on this, in multiple parts of this thread?

Their paper absolutely does not claim that, and your own excerpt from it shared elsewhere in this thread states it clearly:

>In the present study, the AMOC collapse reverses the warming seen in the smooth climate change scenarios, generating an average fall in temperature of 3.4 °C by 2080, accompanied by a substantial reduction in rainfall (−123 mm during the growing season.

2080 is quite a lot sooner than “2300.”

Why are you deliberately and confidently misrepresenting the science on this, in multiple parts of this thread?

Literally not even your own quoted excerpt states that, so why are you posting this? What do you think is meant by your own quoted portion which states,

>In the present study, the AMOC collapse reverses the warming seen in the smooth climate change scenarios, generating an average fall in temperature of 3.4 °C by 2080, accompanied by a substantial reduction in rainfall (−123 mm during the growing season.

Why are you deliberately and confidently misrepresenting the science on this, in multiple parts of this thread?

Yes, you’re probably thinking of the Little Ice Age, which inundated Europe starting during the Renaissance period:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age

It was theorized to have been caused by a similar reduction in Atlantic currents, though perhaps not nearly as complete as we may be facing ahead. So get some good blankets, Euros.