Read the fucking article before complaining about it. I swear it feels like we're still on sometimes. The article links the study, where 9 of the 12 authors (including the first 4) are from Chinese universities. This isn't "Western research" making up a reason to blame China. Reading the article several times I can't find anything in it that's actually critical of China, unless you count the use of "blame" in "Reductions in emissions of aerosols from Chinese factories may be partly to blame for recent heatwaves in the Pacific, a new study has said." To me it just looks like a quick summary of the study (or at least the abstract, scihub doesn't have it so idk). Can anyone point to anything actually untrue or unfair from the article?
The free bits of the study for reference:
Significance
The period of 2010 to 2020 has witnessed the warmest Northeast Pacific (NEP) sea surface temperatures ever recorded, with several prolonged extreme ocean warming events. Though year-to-year internal climate variability may partially explain the appearance of these events, why they occurred dramatically more frequent remains elusive. We find that the rapid aerosol abatement in China triggers atmospheric circulation anomalies beyond its source region, driving a substantial mean surface warming in the NEP, which provides a favorable condition for extreme ocean warming events. Our findings provide an important insight into the mechanisms of the North Pacific ocean-atmosphere changes, highlighting the need to consider the exacerbated risks arising from a reduction in anthropogenic aerosol emissions in assessment of climate change impacts.
Abstract
During 2010 to 2020, Northeast Pacific (NEP) sea surface temperature (SST) experienced the warmest decade ever recorded, manifested in several extreme marine heatwaves, referred to as “warm blob” events, which severely affect marine ecosystems and extreme weather along the west coast of North America. While year-to-year internal climate variability has been suggested as a cause of individual events, the causes of the continuous dramatic NEP SST warming remain elusive. Here, we show that other than the greenhouse gas (GHG) forcing, rapid aerosol abatement in China over the period likely plays an important role. Anomalous tropospheric warming induced by declining aerosols in China generated atmospheric teleconnections from East Asia to the NEP, featuring an intensified and southward-shifted Aleutian Low. The associated atmospheric circulation anomaly weakens the climatological westerlies in the NEP and warms the SST there by suppressing the evaporative cooling. The aerosol-induced mean warming of the NEP SST, along with internal climate variability and the GHG-induced warming, made the warm blob events more frequent and intense during 2010 to 2020. As anthropogenic aerosol emissions continue to decrease, there is likely to be an increase in NEP warm blob events, disproportionately large beyond the direct radiative effects.
If you actually read the fucking article and the source material, do explain the reason for this interesting discrepancy. Why did the Yahoo article feel the need to cut this crucial context from the quote?
Yahoo version
Speaking to Science.org, Maria Rugenstein, a Colorado State University said that the research shows the climate can respond rapidly, and with unexpected repercussions. She said: “I would take this as a cautionary tale.”
the ending of the original article
If the findings hold up, Rugenstein says, they also offer a lesson about the potential consequences of intentionally injecting aerosols high into the atmosphere, a geoengineering strategy some have proposed as a way to cool the planet. The study shows the climate can respond quickly, with unexpected repercussions an ocean away. “I would take this as a cautionary tale,” she says.
The research could offer a warning about efforts in ‘solar geoengineering’ - plans to deliberately reflect heat back into space using aerosols.
Such approaches - including the idea of spraying aerosols into the air from a fleet of planes - have been debated by academic institutions around the world.
Speaking to Science.org, Maria Rugenstein, a Colorado State University said that the research shows the climate can respond rapidly, and with unexpected repercussions. She said: “I would take this as a cautionary tale.”
they literally just broke up the paragraphs
I can't believe then when you cut the context out of the yahoo article it no longer has context
Reductions in emissions of aerosols from Chinese factories may be partly to blame for recent heatwaves in the Pacific, a new study has said.
The study, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, suggests that repeated marine heatwaves over the past decade could be linked to reduction in pollution from factories in China.
"The study"? What study? There's no context!
Over the past decade, the north Pacific has experienced multiple such heatwaves – also known as "warm blob” events – leading to fish die-offs, toxic algae blooms and missing whales.
Such heatwaves have been generally attributed to global warming though it is unknown exactly why it could cause such sudden and variable increases in a specific part of the planet.
"Such heatwaves"? What heatwaves? There's no context!
The entire article is written like this. Every single sentence is its own paragraph other than the last one, which tacks a short quote at the end.
Read the fucking article before complaining about it. I swear it feels like we're still on
sometimes. The article links the study, where 9 of the 12 authors (including the first 4) are from Chinese universities. This isn't "Western research" making up a reason to blame China. Reading the article several times I can't find anything in it that's actually critical of China, unless you count the use of "blame" in "Reductions in emissions of aerosols from Chinese factories may be partly to blame for recent heatwaves in the Pacific, a new study has said." To me it just looks like a quick summary of the study (or at least the abstract, scihub doesn't have it so idk). Can anyone point to anything actually untrue or unfair from the article?
The free bits of the study for reference:
If you actually read the fucking article and the source material, do explain the reason for this interesting discrepancy. Why did the Yahoo article feel the need to cut this crucial context from the quote?
Yahoo version
the ending of the original article
they literally just broke up the paragraphs
I can't believe then when you cut the context out of the yahoo article it no longer has context
They very clearly broke it up in a way that disconnects the two statements removing context from the quote from the scientist, but do go on.
"The study"? What study? There's no context!
"Such heatwaves"? What heatwaves? There's no context!
The entire article is written like this. Every single sentence is its own paragraph other than the last one, which tacks a short quote at the end.
🤨
all due respect, but just take the L man