The Daily Sceptic has the following article on the perennial climate alarmist favourite ‘Day After Tomorrow’ scenario, i.e. the collapse of the Gulf Stream due to global warming resulting in . . . . . northern Europe freezing. Chris Morrison quotes the conclusion of a Royal Society study which says:
Thank you Jaime.. Your work is so very good. Like most all things regarding CAGW, one rarely sees any error bars with their publication, and certainly with media reports. Regarding the AMOC I often have asked alarmists why the AMOC apparently did NOT shut down when sea levels, within the current climate epoch, were up to two meters higher? (about one thousand to 1500 years of SL rise higher then the current rate)
I also really appreciate your work on the Hunga Tunga eruption. Have you considered submitting it to WUWT?
Thanks David. Never really thought about submitting stuff to WUWT. I thought they commissioned all their work from a small group of authors. It would be nice to reach a wider audience though. I get very little traffic from Twitter or Facebook for instance and not much from sites other than Substack.
It’s important to realise that this paper is NOT by the Royal Society. It is published in one of their journals - Philosophical Transactions. I haven’t read the paper but it is important to not get headlines wrong and give the misleading impression that this is a Royal Society sanctioned, or commissioned study.
This paper is one of a series published by the Royal Society on the subject of AMOC, which originate from a scientific meeting held by the Royal Society at its address in London SW1 back in December 2022. So I think that the Royal Society involvement is pretty explicit really.
Many meetings are held at the Royal Society and the proceedings published. Many are held at other societies and the proceedings published. It doesn’t mean the Royal Society endorsed, or commissioned the study. I believe the headline used by the Daily Sceptic is misleading.
"In 2003, the Royal Society hosted a meeting entitled ‘Abrupt climate change: evidence, mechanisms and implications’, the proceedings of which were published in the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London A (361, 1827–2078).
The purpose of the present meeting was to explore what had been learnt since the 2003 meeting and to assess what gaps in understanding and challenges remain with regard to AMOC.
We are grateful to the Royal Society for providing funding for, and hosting the meeting."
So what. There are many diverse views and positions taken by Fellows of the Royal Society. This paper reflects the views of the authors and NOT the Royal Society. The Geological Society funds and hosts many meetings, as does the Royal Society of Chemistry, the Linnaean Society, etc. I could go on. Papers are given at these meetings and reflect the views of the authors not the societies. To my mid, saying something is a Royal Society study is a distortion of the truth. The headline was simply used to infer an argument from authority. In reality it is an argument from McCarthy and Caesar who are not affiliated to the Royal Society in any way what-so-ever other than presenting their paper at the Royal Society.
I suggest if you're that upset and pernickety about Chris Morrison's headline at the Daily Sceptic, then you take it up with him in the comments section below HIS article, not with me, here. As far as I'm concerned, I am calling the study a 'Royal Society study' because that's where it's published, just like I call a study published in Nature a 'Nature study'. But it's pretty obvious that the involvement of the Royal Society in this study and the 12 others published on AMOC goes somewhat beyond merely publishing the academic work of contributors, a fact which you seem determined to deny. C'est la vie. But if it's an unjustified appeal to authority that you're objecting to then I would also point out that the meeting on AMOC which generated the 13 papers which were published by the Royal Society was organised by three Professors attached to the University of Southampton Oceanography Institute which has for years enjoyed an enviable reputation for academic excellence in precisely this area, so if anything, the actual organisers of the talks enjoy even more authority than the Royal Society which hosted and published the talks.
I don’t understand your comment. The paper isn’t buried. It’s published in Philosophical transactions and is one of 13 published following a meeting on the AMOC. My critique is of the headline used on the Daily Sceptic, and repeated here.
I've often wondered why people like John Kerry, Bill Gates and Al Gore have such ginormous carbon footprints? Do they really believe what they preach to the public? Their actions would most definitely say, "no." Same with Jeff Bezos, Leonardio Dicaprio and the list goes on and on. Rules for thee but not for me. What an epic grift.
This is really good work. I love how you are able to unpack those paragraphs into no nonsense honesty. I'd have some faith in a system that said "Look to be honest we really don't know, why don't we just start by not throwing litter around and ban rich people from having jets and yachts and see where we go from there"
Thank you Jaime.. Your work is so very good. Like most all things regarding CAGW, one rarely sees any error bars with their publication, and certainly with media reports. Regarding the AMOC I often have asked alarmists why the AMOC apparently did NOT shut down when sea levels, within the current climate epoch, were up to two meters higher? (about one thousand to 1500 years of SL rise higher then the current rate)
I also really appreciate your work on the Hunga Tunga eruption. Have you considered submitting it to WUWT?
Thanks David. Never really thought about submitting stuff to WUWT. I thought they commissioned all their work from a small group of authors. It would be nice to reach a wider audience though. I get very little traffic from Twitter or Facebook for instance and not much from sites other than Substack.
Perhaps consider it. The web site has a place for submitting articles.
It’s important to realise that this paper is NOT by the Royal Society. It is published in one of their journals - Philosophical Transactions. I haven’t read the paper but it is important to not get headlines wrong and give the misleading impression that this is a Royal Society sanctioned, or commissioned study.
This paper is one of a series published by the Royal Society on the subject of AMOC, which originate from a scientific meeting held by the Royal Society at its address in London SW1 back in December 2022. So I think that the Royal Society involvement is pretty explicit really.
https://royalsociety.org/science-events-and-lectures/2022/12/atlantic-overturning/
Many meetings are held at the Royal Society and the proceedings published. Many are held at other societies and the proceedings published. It doesn’t mean the Royal Society endorsed, or commissioned the study. I believe the headline used by the Daily Sceptic is misleading.
"In 2003, the Royal Society hosted a meeting entitled ‘Abrupt climate change: evidence, mechanisms and implications’, the proceedings of which were published in the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London A (361, 1827–2078).
The purpose of the present meeting was to explore what had been learnt since the 2003 meeting and to assess what gaps in understanding and challenges remain with regard to AMOC.
We are grateful to the Royal Society for providing funding for, and hosting the meeting."
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/374920329_Atlantic_overturning_new_observations_and_challenges
One of the organisers is also a Fellow of the Royal Society.
So what. There are many diverse views and positions taken by Fellows of the Royal Society. This paper reflects the views of the authors and NOT the Royal Society. The Geological Society funds and hosts many meetings, as does the Royal Society of Chemistry, the Linnaean Society, etc. I could go on. Papers are given at these meetings and reflect the views of the authors not the societies. To my mid, saying something is a Royal Society study is a distortion of the truth. The headline was simply used to infer an argument from authority. In reality it is an argument from McCarthy and Caesar who are not affiliated to the Royal Society in any way what-so-ever other than presenting their paper at the Royal Society.
I suggest if you're that upset and pernickety about Chris Morrison's headline at the Daily Sceptic, then you take it up with him in the comments section below HIS article, not with me, here. As far as I'm concerned, I am calling the study a 'Royal Society study' because that's where it's published, just like I call a study published in Nature a 'Nature study'. But it's pretty obvious that the involvement of the Royal Society in this study and the 12 others published on AMOC goes somewhat beyond merely publishing the academic work of contributors, a fact which you seem determined to deny. C'est la vie. But if it's an unjustified appeal to authority that you're objecting to then I would also point out that the meeting on AMOC which generated the 13 papers which were published by the Royal Society was organised by three Professors attached to the University of Southampton Oceanography Institute which has for years enjoyed an enviable reputation for academic excellence in precisely this area, so if anything, the actual organisers of the talks enjoy even more authority than the Royal Society which hosted and published the talks.
💣 BOOM! Love your work Jaime!
So they should bury it so it never sees the light of day?
I don’t understand your comment. The paper isn’t buried. It’s published in Philosophical transactions and is one of 13 published following a meeting on the AMOC. My critique is of the headline used on the Daily Sceptic, and repeated here.
Dear Paul, You can pick and choose as you go, but Jaime works like a Jack Russell terrier going after all rats and their associated vermin.
Well said.
I've often wondered why people like John Kerry, Bill Gates and Al Gore have such ginormous carbon footprints? Do they really believe what they preach to the public? Their actions would most definitely say, "no." Same with Jeff Bezos, Leonardio Dicaprio and the list goes on and on. Rules for thee but not for me. What an epic grift.
My god Jaimie, what a monumental and reassuring effort. Thanks as always.
“We’ve been conned by bad science allied with political activism and corporate vested interests.”
Climate Covid playbook.
One gigantic scam after another....
This is really good work. I love how you are able to unpack those paragraphs into no nonsense honesty. I'd have some faith in a system that said "Look to be honest we really don't know, why don't we just start by not throwing litter around and ban rich people from having jets and yachts and see where we go from there"
☺️
We've got to start somewhere eh 😂