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This discussion has been archived.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: 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.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +4  
       Insightful=1, Informative=3, Total=4
    Extra 'Informative' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   5  
  • (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?