A report published by Yale University and University of Southampton researchers last month theorizes that Arctic sea ice, or the lack thereof, is not an indicator of “climate change,” but rather a significant contributor to disruptions in an ocean current that greatly impacts weather in the Northern Hemisphere. The lead researcher, Dr. Alexey Fedorov of Yale’s Department of Geology and Geophysics, said:
>"Conventional thinking has been that if ocean circulation weakens, reducing the transport of heat from low to high latitudes, then it should lead to sea ice growth. But we have found another, overlooked, mechanism by which sea ice actively affects [Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation] on multi-decadal time scales … In our experiments we saw a potential loss of 30 percent to 50 percent of AMOC’s strength due to Arctic sea ice loss. That is a significant amount, and it would accelerate the collapse of AMOC if it were to occur."
Several of the same scientists published a report earlier this year that suggests the AMOC isn’t as stable as previously thought. And while that might sound like an opening for a new round of climate alarmism, the report instead turns everything the alarmists have declared “settled science” on its head.
The report noted the biggest contributor to changes in Earth’s climate is the current period of solar inactivity. Carbon dioxide, they concluded, has almost nothing to do with these processes. In fact, data from NASA’s Space Weather Prediction Center show the current solar cycle as about half as active as usual.
August solar activity is about half the level anticipated by historical data.
Good thing you picked a reliable news source to decide the fate of life on Earth.
Joseph Scott
>The report noted the biggest contributor to changes in Earth’s climate is the current period of solar inactivity. except that's easy to show isn't true
Justin Bailey
what scale is that?
Wyatt Clark
news.yale.edu/2017/07/31/loss-arctic-sea-ice-impacting-atlantic-ocean-water-circulation-system >“We suggest that Arctic changes on a multi-decadal timescale, such as the decline in sea ice cover that we are currently experiencing, is the most efficient way to weaken the large-scale ocean circulation of the North Atlantic, which is responsible for the oceanic transport of heat from the equator to high latitudes,” Sévellec said. the real paper is actually making some spooky conclusions
James King
I'm skeptical either way. But I do know this summer has been record low afternoon temperatures. August is supposed to be hot but this year has been cool, like 80s. Usually get a lot of days over 100 but this year not many over 95.
Nathaniel Cooper
>I'm only pretending to be a Veeky Forums hacker. Can't expect me to look shit up on my own. mediabiasfactcheck.com/trunews/
Jayden Powell
>trunews.com Well with a name like that, you know it must be true.
>theorizes that Arctic sea ice, or the lack thereof, is not an indicator of “climate change,” but rather a significant contributor to disruptions in an ocean current that greatly impacts weather in the Northern Hemisphere. How are those things mutually exclusive? Nothing in Dr. Alexey's quote says sea ice loss isn't a result of climate change and basic common sense would tell you that declaring what effect that loss might have on ocean currents says nothing about what caused it in the first place.
>Several of the same scientists published a report earlier this year that suggests the AMOC isn’t as stable as previously thought. And while that might sound like an opening for a new round of climate alarmism lmaoing my ass off. Notice how the author expects his readers to be more worried about "alarmism" than about the possibility that bad things could happen to the climate. Because of course nothing bad could ever actually happen. Any suggestion that it would is just alarmism. That's these people's mindset.
>In fact, data from NASA’s Space Weather Prediction Center show the current solar cycle as about half as active as usual. >August solar activity is about half the level anticipated by historical data. Is this what's supposed to "turn everything the alarmists have declared 'settled science' on its head"? Because you just pointed out the main reason for ruling out solar activity as a cause of recent global warming and it isn't exactly news, it's common knowledge.
>The report noted the biggest contributor to changes in Earth’s climate is the current period of solar inactivity. Carbon dioxide, they concluded, has almost nothing to do with these processes. Not going to give the article a click to analyze it further, but I'm going to take a wild guess and say that's not what the report says and the author is just being retarded.
Adam Watson
>trunews.com L0Lno fgt pls
Jaxson Jones
So... even during a period of relative solar inactivity, the Earth's climate continues to warm. That's not very encouraging.
Parker Sanchez
we have quite a cold summer atm in central yurop >inb4 hurrpisodic durrbjective
Asher Jenkins
>A report published by Yale University and University of Southampton researchers last month theorizes that Arctic sea ice, or the lack thereof, is not an indicator of “climate change,” but rather a significant contributor to disruptions in an ocean current that greatly impacts weather in the Northern Hemisphere. This sentence makes no sense. The latter does not imply the former.
>Several of the same scientists published a report earlier this year that suggests the AMOC isn’t as stable as previously thought. And while that might sound like an opening for a new round of climate alarmism, the report instead turns everything the alarmists have declared “settled science” on its head. >The report noted the biggest contributor to changes in Earth’s climate is the current period of solar inactivity. Except it doesn't say anything like that at all:
It says that the possibility of a collapsed AMOC under global warming conditions is being underestimated.
Mods, please delete this blatant misrepresentation of scientific research.
Justin Sanchez
Your experience may not be representative of the global average.
Matthew Evans
>TRUNEWS During the first nine months, Rick traveled across America speaking to audiences about the moral decline of the USA and its eventual consequences. In particular, he warned of an economic collapse and war on American soil if the nation continued to rebel against God’s commandments
James Nguyen
Proof that Veeky Forums is dumber than /pol/: Not a single person in this thread has provided an internet archive link so as to avoid giving trunews clicks/ad revenue.
Charles Gray
Adblocking is immoral though.
People who provide content for free rely on ads so that to keep things up.
None of us would have enjoyed the internet's knowledge base for free if there were no ads.
Xavier Parker
>Several of the same scientists published a report earlier this year that suggests the AMOC isn’t as stable as previously thought. And while that might sound like an opening for a new round of climate alarmism, the report instead turns everything the alarmists have declared “settled science” on its head. >The report noted the biggest contributor to changes in Earth’s climate is the current period of solar inactivity. Carbon dioxide, they concluded, has almost nothing to do with these processes. In fact, data from NASA’s Space Weather Prediction Center show the current solar cycle as about half as active as usual. The report doesn't say this, not that it's in any way surprising or unusual for a denier blog to report the exact opposite conclusion of what a study actually showed.
Levi Thompson
>Not a single person in this thread has provided an internet archive link so as to avoid giving trunews clicks/ad revenue. Then you do it
Nathaniel Carter
mediabiasfactcheck.com/contact/ >I’ve seen negative articles written about MBFC. Why is that? >It is simple. Highly biased websites that are not always factual don’t like us exposing them. Since we back our ratings with evidence they don’t really have any recourse other than to discredit our website and ratings. We fully expect this, but are confident the readers of this website will be able to look at the source, our ratings, and decide for themselves who is credible.
Ladies and gentlemen, this is the power of critical thinkers/zeteticians/rational people/reason and logic superheroes!
Matthew Carter
I didn't even go to their site. The idea so obviously stunk of denier charlatanism, I reviewed critiques *of* the Trunews (red flag in the name) org. Shit-tier "news." /pol/s never research the bias.
Jayden Smith
Suckered: "I want to issue a warning about the host/owner of Trunews Christian radio show at www.trunews.com." ... forum culteducation com/read.php?12,78550
"... TruNews is a continuation of TBN. TBN has been the stage from which the worst of Christendom’s false teachers expound their doctrines." johnnycirucci com/is-trunews-controlled-opposition/
Tons more. google "trunews review" Some sites have opinions that rate the site highly (shills in the true sense). The sites with actual information though are all negative.
Leo Perry
>>It is simple. Highly biased websites that are not always factual don’t like us exposing them. Since we back our ratings with evidence they don’t really have any recourse other than to discredit our website and ratings. We fully expect this, but are confident the readers of this website will be able to look at the source, our ratings, and decide for themselves who is credible. Typical, predictable dodge and taunt/come-on.
