Does the author not know that there's a difference between a virus and a bacterium?

I get that it's easy to to jump to conclusions online but you literally have me all wrong. I work in researching carbon sequestration. As already mentioned in a different comment reply, I'm happy that people are researching AMOC and the consequences its weakening will bring. But, there's a very big difference between saying, "AMOC is weakening and may collapse at some point if things don't change", and "we're already past the point of no return". One is a helpful statement, the other just drums of despair, which isn't a helpful emotion for tackling climate change.

If you look at the pre-print, its written to my eyes in a somewhat unscientific manner relative to most other climate publications, and so I kind of doubt its rigor. If you want an in-depth review, https://www.annualreviews.org/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-marine-040324-024822 presents an update article on why exactly making this sort of conclusion is difficult.

Oh definitely, there's a lot of troubling outcomes and I'm glad the research is being done. I just think news reporting on unreviewed results is good for nothing other than fear mongering. And it's not like that has been effective for other consequences of climate change. Giving people more reasons to 'give up' won't help solve problems.

"In a study that has yet to undergo peer review..." tells you all you need to be concerned about for right now. AMOC is a very complex phenomenon and not easy at all to model. All conclusions should be properly vetted before becoming actual news.

One other point that I think no one has mentioned yet is the importance of informed consent when treating people with otherwise fatal conditions. Surgery and other treatments e.g. chemotherapy for cancer incur a lot of pain and suffering in those going through it as well. A person can understand that all that suffering is for the greater good of extending their life, but for a pet that is far from the case, and they may in fact need to suffer more than if they weren't treated.

I love my dog with my whole heart, but I would never put her through chemo if she had cancer.

Depending on how far of a distance you're trying to simulate you probably also want to change the eq. Higher frequency sounds get attenuated faster over distance, so probably something like a low pass filter with a cutoff frequency that gets lower the further away the sound is would work well to start.

Depending on where you're coming from, you might have a different idea of what friendly is. While nearly all Canadians will treat any foreigners with kindness and respect, we don't tend to go out of our way to talk to and be hospitable towards strangers as much as people in a lot of other countries do. Especially in big cities.

Cloud iridescence! . Typical with thin high atmosphere clouds. When very small ice crystals or water droplets form the cloud they can diffract the light from the sun, causing an interference pattern to form. Not entirely dissimilar from an oil slick.

Actually she said pegging French guys

The article literally only says they've developed a new photon detecting device, not a quantum radar system. This isn't news.

Anubis isn't supposed to be hard to avoid, but expensive to avoid. Not really surprised that a big company might be willing to throw a bunch of cash at it.

Awesome! Glad you're aware. It's slowly taking over my neighborhood and I have a young puppy who loves to chew now so I've been overly vigilant.