Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by mrpg on Sunday December 02 2018, @02:13PM   Printer-friendly
from the don't-care-I-live-in-amundsen-scott-base dept.

The research co-led by Drs. Christelle Not and Benoit Thibodeau from the Department of Earth Sciences and the Swire Institute of Marine Science, The University of Hong Kong, highlights a dramatic weakening of the circulation during the 20th century that is interpreted to be a direct consequence of global warming and associated melt of the Greenland Ice-Sheet. This is important for near-future climate as slower circulation in the North Atlantic can yield profound change on both the North American and European climate but also on the African and Asian summer monsoon rainfall. The findings were recently published in the prestigious journal Geophysical Research Letters.

[...] Interestingly, the research team also found a weak signal during a period called the Little Ice Age (a cold spell observed between about 1600 and 1850 AD). While not as pronounced as the 20th century trend, the signal might confirm that this period was also characterized by a weaker circulation in the North Atlantic, which implies a decrease in the transfer of heat toward Europe, contributing to the cold temperature of this period. However, more work is needed to validate this hypothesis.

https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2018-11/tuoh-oci112318.php


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 0, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 02 2018, @04:06PM (30 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 02 2018, @04:06PM (#768899)

    There's no doubt that global climate change is real.
    There's no doubt that there's nothing that can be done to stop it.
    Therefore there's no doubt, it's not human caused i.e. anthropgenic.

    There are all kinds of signs and signals that demonstrate that the norm for the earth is a much broader temperature range than we've enjoyed these last 10,000 years.
    I for one welcome the return of the earth's normal, natural cycle and look forward to the adaptations that mankind will go through as we get the earth back to it's normal warmer temperatures and finally put the ice age we've been for the last 20,000 years behind us.

    Starting Score:    0  points
    Moderation   0  
       Troll=1, Insightful=1, Disagree=1, Total=3
    Extra 'Troll' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   0  
  • (Score: 4, Insightful) by Azuma Hazuki on Sunday December 02 2018, @04:50PM (22 children)

    by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Sunday December 02 2018, @04:50PM (#768909) Journal

    Except civilization as fragile as fuck and can't adapt to that sort of change. If you're looking forward to hundreds of millions or billions of deaths, wars, regression, and the very real possibility of falling back into a permanent Iron Age due to not having easily-available resources to kickstart a second industrial revolution, well, you may get what you want.

    --
    I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
    • (Score: 2) by RandomFactor on Sunday December 02 2018, @05:11PM

      by RandomFactor (3682) Subscriber Badge on Sunday December 02 2018, @05:11PM (#768917) Journal

      It is a race.
      .
      Do we get control over the climate before it gets too hot or too cold.
      .
      1) Control over temperature (we can do this brute force with mirrors if we really put our mind to it.)
      2) Truly green (fusion) power generation
      .
      Next comes Russia wanting to green Siberia vs. hotter climes wanting to cool things down a bit. Oh boy won't THAT be fun. Blasting sunshades and mirrors out of the sky! Countermeasures to protect them. The future is going to be exciting!

      --
      В «Правде» нет известий, в «Известиях» нет правды
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 02 2018, @05:12PM (17 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 02 2018, @05:12PM (#768919)

      What are you basing this 'fragile' theory on? And what ideas are there to make it less fragile?

      • (Score: 4, Interesting) by Azuma Hazuki on Sunday December 02 2018, @05:21PM (9 children)

        by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Sunday December 02 2018, @05:21PM (#768922) Journal

        The domino effect mostly. Imagine this scenario, all the more chilling because if *I* thought of it, it's inevitable our friends in Russia, China, Iran, etc, already have: suppose the US's electricity infrastructure in a few key cities is knocked out by EMP weapons. The goal here wasn't to irradiate citizens or cause fallout, though the actors in question certainly don't mind that happening as a side effect. No, the goal was to take out the power grids of NYC, Chicago, Houston, Washington DC, and San Diego.

        Suppose they succeed in this. What kind of chaos would emerge from it? My point is that the US infrastructure (and now, US politics itself...) is creaky, badly-maintained, under-protected, and in places outright falling apart, yet is also absolutely vital, and there are dependencies and cross-relations *everywhere.* THAT is what I mean by fragile: it's like a poorly-balanced Jenga tower, where just jostling one stick can indirectly collapse the entire thing.

        What would help is a combination of hardening and redundancy. We have the tech; what we don't have is the political will. You'd *think* this would be a no-brainer: start a 21st century Civilian Conservation Corps, put people to work rebuilding our infrastructure Daft Punk style (harder better faster stronger), which would both revitalize the economy and make us less vulnerable to foreign attacks.

        Frankly, as a nation, the US deserves whatever it gets. Individually, of course, the people who deserve to suffer won't and the ones who don't deserve it will, but on the national level, the US has horrible karma.

        --
        I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 02 2018, @05:27PM (1 child)

          by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 02 2018, @05:27PM (#768924)

          That has nothing to do with the coming mini ice age and resulting reduction in crops. But yea, decentralized energy production should become a political priority.

          • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday December 02 2018, @07:49PM

            by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Sunday December 02 2018, @07:49PM (#768960) Journal

            Actually, it does have *something to do* with any reduction in resources. Scarce resources have often led to war in the past.

        • (Score: 4, Informative) by fritsd on Sunday December 02 2018, @06:32PM (1 child)

          by fritsd (4586) on Sunday December 02 2018, @06:32PM (#768937) Journal

          I read something in the '80s about the then relevant "Plutonium economy": The idea was to make all energy infrastructure centralized into one or a few highly dangerous Fast Breeder Reactors (using liquid Sodium for cooling. Seriously. I'm not kidding: Superphénix [wikipedia.org]. Obviously, it never rains in that part of France :-/)

          Then this would put the entire nation's well-being at risk of a single terrorist blowing up one of these.

          Then that would make politicians decide: "oh well, we like freedom and democracy, but for the sake of our nation's safety and energy independence, we have no choice but to implement a police state, it is inevitable"

          Now imagine a terrorist attack on a DE-centralized energy infrastructure. Fifth-column ISIS soldiers blowing up a wind pylon, then moving on to the next..
          No, I can't imagine that either.

          Therefore, a de-centralized energy infrastructure undermines the fear of terrorists induced in the US population. The people would start wondering instead: "hey, what actually happened to all my tax money, and why are there holes in the roads, and why can't I have proper health insurance but my congressperson can?"

          • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Azuma Hazuki on Sunday December 02 2018, @06:53PM

            by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Sunday December 02 2018, @06:53PM (#768941) Journal

            Eeee-yup. That's what I mean by lack of political will; the parasites and sociopaths on top *want* it this way.

            --
            I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
        • (Score: 2) by RandomFactor on Sunday December 02 2018, @10:53PM (2 children)

          by RandomFactor (3682) Subscriber Badge on Sunday December 02 2018, @10:53PM (#768989) Journal

          the US has horrible karma.

          .
          The US doesn't have karma. Just like any other nation, it has history. The US, just like a business, is not a person with a soul. (Politicians I sure as hell hope have karma, but that's a different discussion...)
          .
          If nations did have karma however, I would be curious, what causes good and bad karma for a nation and why is the US's accrued karma so much worse than other nations? Do you see any actions of this nation that conversely generate good karma?

          --
          В «Правде» нет известий, в «Известиях» нет правды
          • (Score: 5, Informative) by Azuma Hazuki on Monday December 03 2018, @12:04AM (1 child)

            by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Monday December 03 2018, @12:04AM (#768999) Journal

            Well, you're correct there, that's more of a metaphor than anything since a nation is not an individual. But to continue with it: the US got off to a bad start as it was begun by a bunch of Calvinist zealots who got kicked out of 17th century England for being too Christian (stop and think about that sentence for a moment in context...terrifying, isn't it?). They proceeded to betray the very Indians who helped them survive their first rocky years and immediately got down to genocide, wrapped up what was essentially a tax rebellion in the language of freedom and brotherhood, *kept the genocide up,* fought war after war of acquisition, had one of the most brutal slave trades outside the Arab world for over two hundred years...and all that before the 20th century!

            It's in the early 1900s that the imperialist rhetoric really took hold with the Monroe Doctrine, and the Mammon-worship with the Federal Reserve Act. Germany got its ideas about eugenics and eventually extermination camps from the US. We nearly went into WWI on their side, and could have gone in on the Axis side in WWII. After WWII we were the only functioning economy left on the face of the earth, and we squandered it, leading to the current situation.

            We were behind even the savage British in abolishing slavery. Women did not gain universal suffrage until 1920. Segregation was de jure until the mid 60s, and is de facto still. Marital fucking rape wasn't even criminalized nationwide until 1993. The government lost all accountability in '73 when Ford pardoned Nixon, setting the precedent for every misbehaving President we've had since, which is ALL of them except Carter. The social safety net's not just unraveling but actively being pulled to shreds by people who will call themselves good Christians--y'know, followers of the guy who said "care for the poor or spend eternity on fire?" (c.f. Mt. 25:31-47 among others). We don't produce anything but weapons. We're heading backwards to pre-Depression society at an ever-accelerating rate.

            The infrastructure is crumbling to bits and the elite refuse to fix it even though it would be in their best interest medium and long-term because "muh shareholder value!" Corporations are more people than people are. Money is everything. We have actual goddamn Nazis with actual goddamn Nazi flags marching in the actual goddamn street. Our government cozies up to hellspawn like the Saudis and sentences entire nations to genocide and starvation (Yemen), destroys entire countries to keep the petrodollar afloat (Iraq, Libya), has sold its soul to the soulless Chicoms and the perverted Russians, pronounces lies truth and the truth lies on national TV, disgraces itself in international meetings of governance...what more do I need to say?

            And what makes this a million times worse is, the US does all this while brazenly spouting "leader of the free world!" rhetoric. That is some epic gaslighting.

            --
            I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
            • (Score: 2) by Arik on Monday December 03 2018, @07:05AM

              by Arik (4543) on Monday December 03 2018, @07:05AM (#769092) Journal
              "Well, you're correct there, that's more of a metaphor than anything since a nation is not an individual."

              True.

              "But to continue with it: the US got off to a bad start as it was begun by a bunch of Calvinist zealots who got kicked out of 17th century England for being too Christian (stop and think about that sentence for a moment in context...terrifying, isn't it?)."

              Except that it's a half truth at best. The colonies had different characters and compositions and your description only fits some of them. Massachusetts was founded by Puritans - which is one of the reasons why it has lost the vast majority of its early claims. New Hampshire and Rhode Island today exist as separate entities precisely because the puritans in Massachusetts Bay did not represent them. The Anglicans of Virginia were almost as oppressive as the Puritans of Mass. but Carolina was always more open, cast off the state church link more quickly, and unofficially welcomed dissenters (as long as they were protestant!) from the beginning.

              The situation in the early US was nowhere near as dire as you paint. Unitarian universalism was the unofficial religion of the young republic - the fastest growing denomination even in states where it was prohibited. The situation was actually so *good* at the time that Virginian Thomas Jefferson, living in a state with an official religion (one to which he did not subscribe, and which he criticized relentlessly) could write "I rejoice that in this blessed country of free enquiry & belief, which has surrendered it’s creed and conscience to neither kings nor priests, the genuine doctrine of one only God is reviving, and I trust that there is not a young man now living in the US. who will not die an Unitarian" and "the pure and simple unity of the creator of the universe is now all but ascendant in the Eastern states; it is dawning in the West, and advancing towards the South; and I confidently expect that the present generation will see Unitarianism become the general religion of the United States."

              So what went wrong? How did we get from TJ's generation to that of the Spanish-American war? Do you know?

              --
              If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
        • (Score: 3, Funny) by c0lo on Sunday December 02 2018, @10:56PM

          by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Sunday December 02 2018, @10:56PM (#768990) Journal

          US infrastructure... is creaky, badly-maintained, under-protected, and in places outright falling apart

          You mean 'operating at peak efficiency by the tireless work of those MBA in cutting fat', right?

          --
          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
        • (Score: 2) by Arik on Monday December 03 2018, @06:45AM

          by Arik (4543) on Monday December 03 2018, @06:45AM (#769089) Journal
          You want chaos? You don't need global warming to produce it. The population is already worked up to a fevered pitch and just about anything could set it off, nothing so dramatic needed. Just keep messing with the trucking industry. You know how long you have between a trucking shutdown and food riots in this country? After about 2 days the shelves would be empty, I'd hope for a week before major riots.

          "My point is that the US infrastructure (and now, US politics itself...) is creaky, badly-maintained, under-protected, and in places outright falling apart, yet is also absolutely vital, and there are dependencies and cross-relations *everywhere.*"

          I'm thinking of someone who said: “We’re being taxed to blow up bridges in Iraq and rebuild them, while ours at home are falling down.” Remember who that was?

          I'll disagree with your point but only a quibble. *Civilization* is not necessarily so fragile as you might be read to imply. Civilizations collapse but civilization continues. But yes, ours in 'the West' are particularly well positioned for collapse right now, and rising sea levels are one significant stressor that could cause it. But if we look at what we know of previous episodes historically, the climate change by itself wouldn't do the trick. In the late bronze age, for instance, you have the sea peoples, probably migrating as a result of climate change, probably facing civilizations significantly weakened by the same climate changes already, but you still needed that human element moving over the landscape looting and burning to bring on a full system collapse (and Egypt survives as a civilization, though her peers all go dark.)

          In today's scenario, our refugees are not caused by climate change - at least not yet. They're being caused by our politics. It's as if the Peleset appeared in Egypt not because of climate change, but because the Egyptians themselves had burned their fields. Adding climate change on top of that situation has the potential to do tremendous damage.

          "Civilian Conservation Corps"

          Not enough profit in that for Raytheon.

          "on the national level, the US has horrible karma."

          We do, in an absolute sense, but to avoid depression we should keep in mind that we don't look so bad on a relative scale. All large nations, and many small ones, have some atrocious karma in the closet.

          --
          If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
      • (Score: 2) by HiThere on Sunday December 02 2018, @05:29PM (6 children)

        by HiThere (866) Subscriber Badge on Sunday December 02 2018, @05:29PM (#768925) Journal

        Repeated prior collapses of more localized civilizations under climatic stresses. That doesn't seem to have anything to do with the Roman collapse (that seems more like poisoning of the aristocracy by water in lead pipes), but many others, both old world and new. Some are more securely tied to climate changes than others, but in a large number it looks like a significant causal element. Usually we don't know quite enough to say that climate change was the only, or at least principle element, but the evidence is often strongly suggestive.

        --
        Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 02 2018, @05:45PM (2 children)

          by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 02 2018, @05:45PM (#768927)

          The solution is a rememberance tax to discourage repeating the past.

        • (Score: 3, Interesting) by Runaway1956 on Sunday December 02 2018, @07:54PM (2 children)

          by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Sunday December 02 2018, @07:54PM (#768961) Journal

          I've read at least two books in past decades, that insist that every dynastic change in China was preceded by the failure of the monsoons, aka climate change. When people are fat and happy, dynaties are stable. When people are hungry, and burying their children, dynasties change.

          • (Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 02 2018, @08:10PM (1 child)

            by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 02 2018, @08:10PM (#768964)

            I've read at least two books in past decades,

            Wow, that many?? I am impressed, Runaway. May have to revise my estimate of your erudition.

            • (Score: 3, Touché) by Runaway1956 on Sunday December 02 2018, @08:42PM

              by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Sunday December 02 2018, @08:42PM (#768973) Journal

              So, are you taking the position that there are thousands of books that all agree on this one bit of data? That there are so many of them that just about everyone has to have read two or more of them?

              Oh, never mind. You're just being jealous again, that you can't be me.

    • (Score: 1, Offtopic) by Runaway1956 on Sunday December 02 2018, @07:44PM

      by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Sunday December 02 2018, @07:44PM (#768958) Journal

      You've put your finger on one of the reasons that it is so important to colonize other rocks. That thin veneer of civilization is rather fragile. I don't know how fragile, but we do know that civilizations have risen and fallen in the past. Even within recorded history, we've seen them come and go. Archeology tells us that the same processes happened before recorded history.

      There was all that crap about oil-maximum a few decades ago. I never put much stock in that, but it was and is a real consideration. But, the fall of our current civilization would almost certainly end any possibility of man leaving the earth. We need to get out there NOW, while the getting is good.

      The Four Horsemen will ride the earth regardless. People will die, and sooner or later there will be another Dark Ages. But, NOW is the time to build colonies. There are no more urgent goals for mankind today. Getting off the earth, building multiple self-sufficient colonies, and building a few universities out there is the only real hope that the next Dark Ages doesn't kill us off. If we break our current civilization without accomplishing any of that, it will be a long, long, LONG time before anything "good" can happen for us.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 02 2018, @11:29PM (1 child)

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 02 2018, @11:29PM (#768992)

      Over 8 billion people will die over the next hundred years. Global warming, cooling, homeostasis or not, there is little that can be done about this.

      Carpe diem

  • (Score: 5, Informative) by aristarchus on Sunday December 02 2018, @08:07PM (5 children)

    by aristarchus (2645) on Sunday December 02 2018, @08:07PM (#768963) Journal

    Therefore there's no doubt, it's not human caused i.e. anthropgenic.

    Compleat and utter non sequitur, this right here is. Since humans can't stop it, it wasn't humans that caused it? You mean like the Crash of '08, or the Nuclear War of 2021? Even a shill should recognize this reasoning is fallacious, and be embarrassed to put it in writing, even as an AC.

    • (Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 02 2018, @08:26PM (3 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 02 2018, @08:26PM (#768967)

      It isn't about logic, it is about pushing a narrative. They can't use the denier stance now that even some of the die-hard deniers have change their tune, so acknowledge reality and then immediately deny reality in a way that keeps the narrative on track.

      And people think this site is too small for shills, ha!

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 02 2018, @10:08PM (2 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 02 2018, @10:08PM (#768982)

        Who ever denied the climate changes?

        • (Score: 5, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 02 2018, @10:42PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 02 2018, @10:42PM (#768984)

          Who ever denied the climate changes?

          frojack, khallow, jmorris, Sulla, VLM, and tRDT. For starters. And yes, we know what you mean, and you are arguing in bad faith.

        • (Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Monday December 03 2018, @06:59PM

          by DeathMonkey (1380) on Monday December 03 2018, @06:59PM (#769247) Journal

          Who ever denied the climate changes?

          Welcome to SN, clearly you are new here!

          I see that you have never read a thread about AGW on this site, including the one you just posted in.

    • (Score: 2) by Arik on Monday December 03 2018, @06:28AM

      by Arik (4543) on Monday December 03 2018, @06:28AM (#769086) Journal
      It's not solid logic but it's not necessarily wrong either. Things that are done by humans can typically be undone by humans, it's not always practical to undo things completely but at the very least we can learn to stop doing it. And at a deeper level, there is confusion between two narratives; one hears that we must take extremely expensive measures to mitigate the changes, but then we're also told the changes are impossible to mitigate. Philosophically, one might note that there is little practical significance to something being 'man made' if it was made by previous generations and is beyond our power to undo.
      --
      If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
  • (Score: 5, Informative) by PartTimeZombie on Sunday December 02 2018, @10:52PM

    by PartTimeZombie (4827) on Sunday December 02 2018, @10:52PM (#768988)

    There's no doubt that global climate change is real.
    There's no doubt that there's nothing that can be done to stop it.
    Therefore there's no doubt, it's not human caused i.e. anthropgenic.

    None of those assertions follow from each other.