LOUNGE all new asksnapzu ideasforsnapzu newtribes interesting pics videos funny technology science technews gaming health history worldnews business web research entertainment food living internet socialmedia mobile space sports photography nature animals movies culture travel television finance music celebrities gadgets environment usa crime politics law money justice psychology security cars wtf art google books lifetips bigbrother women apple kids recipes whoa military privacy education facebook medicine computing wildlife design war drugs middleeast diet toplists economy fail violence humor africa microsoft parenting dogs canada neuroscience architecture religion advertising infographics sex journalism disaster software aviation relationships energy booze life japan ukraine newmovies nsa cannabis name Name of the tribe humanrights nasa cute weather gifs discoveries cops futurism football earth dataviz pets guns entrepreneurship fitness android extremeweather fashion insects india northamerica
+36 36 0
Published 2 months ago with 5 Comments
Additional Contributions:

Join the Discussion

  • Auto Tier
  • All
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
Post Comment
  • achekulaev
    +2

    It does not seem to explain high levels of CO2.

    • AdelleChattre
      +7

      That's beyond the scope of this subject being that's settled science. This is about understanding and anticipating the now-inevitable impact of anthropogenic global warming, not explaining away the very banshee call of CO2 level data.

      • achekulaev (edited 1 month ago)
        +3

        Maybe you misread the article. It actually says, that human impact might be not as big as we thought.

        They conclude that records show little sign of human influence on the circulation, so we must be in another period of naturally low circulation that could continue for another twenty years or so—bringing faster global warming than we saw in the last couple of decades. ... Ka-Kit Tung was also a co-author of a 2013 study (which we covered) that attributed most of the wiggles in global temperature to Atlantic circulation. That left human-caused global warming nearly linear going back at least 70 years, despite an increasing rate of greenhouse gas emissions.

        It basically assumes that warming we see during latest time might in large part be not a result of human intervention, but a natural long-term process.

        • AdelleChattre (edited 1 month ago)
          +4

          At a glance, Chen and Tung suggest that half of the heat caused by rising atmospheric greenhouse gas levels is being stored in the depths of the North Atlantic. It's dead certain that heat is rising, what with anthropogenic global warming and all. We're not starting there, are we? Seems to me like you noticed yourself they're not handwaving away recent atmospheric composition data.

          You're so right, also, that I may very well have this wrong, but aren't they saying when the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation is strengthening, surface global warming slows? In mind of the fact that stored heat is rising due to anthropogenic global warming, aren't they saying when the AMOC is weakening, surface global warming speeds up? Rapidity seems relevant today.

          Apparently there may be some periodic oscillation going between the North Atlantic and the Southern Ocean? I mean, sure they interpolated a great deal of not very much AMOC data, but really that's just as well because mostly we've got such shit data in the first place. I'm not finding that all that too hard to imagine. Have I much misread it? You tell me.

          • achekulaev (edited 1 month ago)
            +3

            Article says what it says: there is human global warming, but it might be linear, not accelerating. Whether you misread it or not is your own call. Some people read what they want.

            For me it is the most important part, because it is what shapes current and future decisions. If we can do something about global warming with reasonable means and with meaningful results, then we should. However if doing something about it is too expensive, then it might not be worth doing something right now.

            And this article, by saying that a substantial part of warming is not related to human activities decreased the potential result of doing something about global warming.

Here are some other snaps you may like...