1) This paper is not by the same author, he is merely a co-author with a minor contribution that completely reflects the paper I cited.
2) The paper follows the same fallacy as the statement "we cannot rule out that there is an invisible unicorn in this room, we must evacuate it at once".
It omits the extremely important observation, that the THC has been stable for several thousand years despite major freshwater influx. But it somehow suggests that models reproducing this observations are "stability biased", because there is an early unstable spherical-cow-model of the problem.
The scientific consensus, also cited in the paper, is that the THC is stable. Over 90% of models agree with that conclusion AND (importantly!) practical observation.
Models producing instability are outliers and have the burden of proof on them that they reflect reality, not the other way around.
If you claim that there is an invisible pink unicorn in my room, the burden of proof is on you to give me evidence of its existence, instead of telling me that I must prove to you that it isn't there.
That's how science works, going all the way back to medival times - and if you don't like William of Occam, I'll refer you to Francis Bacon.
We, as humanity, have been through this many times. Extraordinary claims of collapsing ocean currents require extraordinary evidence, which isn't there.
Comments
2) The paper follows the same fallacy as the statement "we cannot rule out that there is an invisible unicorn in this room, we must evacuate it at once".
Models producing instability are outliers and have the burden of proof on them that they reflect reality, not the other way around.
We, as humanity, have been through this many times. Extraordinary claims of collapsing ocean currents require extraordinary evidence, which isn't there.