Northern Hemisphere Pollution a Cause of '80s Africa Drought 158
vinces99 writes "Decades of drought in central Africa reached their worst point in the 1980s, causing Lake Chad, a shallow lake used to water crops in neighboring countries, to almost dry out completely. The shrinking lake and prolonged drought were initially blamed on overgrazing and bad agricultural practices. More recently, Lake Chad became an example of global warming. But new University of Washington research shows the drought was caused at least in part by Northern Hemisphere air pollution. Particles from coal-burning factories in the United States and Europe during the 1960s, '70s and '80s cooled the entire Northern Hemisphere, shifting tropical rain bands south. That meant that rains no longer reached the Sahel region, a band that spans the African continent just below the Sahara desert."
Who's to blame? (Score:5, Funny)
The real question.. (Score:5, Interesting)
If that was caused my industrial pollution in the U.S. 30-odd years ago, what can we expect from the pollution China is dishing out?
Re:The real question.. (Score:5, Funny)
Not much, I'd say. They blamed it on:
1) overgrazing
2) bad agriculture
3) global warming
4) pollution of US and Euro factories
How about we simply wait for 5) and blame those guys ?
Re:The real question.. (Score:1)
If you think Slashdot looks favourably on Communism, or even leans slightly left at all, then you must be new here.
Re:The real question.. (Score:5, Insightful)
what can we expect from the pollution China is dishing out?
lots of black pots and kettles
Re:The real question.. (Score:1)
nothing good.
http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2002943714_asianair21m.html [seattletimes.com]
Re:The real question.. (Score:2, Insightful)
Secondly, you are already seeing what is expected. We have droughts and floods going on all over. Make no mistake. Much of that is caused by China and increasingly, the rest of BRIC.
This will continue until we quit giving a pass to China/BRI. It is insane that so many claim that china has a RIGHT to increase co2 and all the pollution. Normalizing on per capitia is insane. Pollution is tied to GDP, not people. And the only way to change things is to create a tax on ALL goods (local and imported) based on where the goods parts comes from. And it needs to be normalized to GDP. Until then, things will continue to get worse.
Re:The real question.. (Score:2)
It's not often I find myself agreeing with an AC
Re:The real question.. (Score:2)
Pollution is tied to quality of life, which is tied to energy consumption per capita.
GDP is really not a relevant measure, except in terms of being able to purchase that energy.
Re:The real question.. (Score:1)
If current weather trends are any indication, the failure of the conveyor, followed by the jet stream. Both are decelerating. But you can't pin that on China, that's everyone's fault.
Re:Who's to blame? (Score:1, Insightful)
Bush. Its always his fault.
And personally i'm sick and tired of the 'blame America for the worlds woes'
Re:Who's to blame? (Score:2)
And personally i'm sick and tired of the 'blame America for the worlds woes'
So you see "Northern Hemisphere" and think that just means America? That continent spans both hemispheres!
Re:Who's to blame? (Score:2)
you're right... northern hemisphere is only half of america
americans think they own the whole world, which also includes the southern hemisphere
Re:Who's to blame? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Who's to blame? (Score:2, Insightful)
While I do agree that the US have been very helpful towards us during WWII and provided some much needed balance during the cold war, there are a lot of things it did wrong and still does. The fact that China and Russia do the same does not make those things okay. There is a world of difference between saving an allied nation from threat or invasion by a neighbor (good) and actively meddling in the domestic affairs of said nations. (bad)
Take the second Iraq war for example. Yes, the people were ruled by a dictator they would probably be better off without. Did the American intervention actually improve matters? Debatable. It is possible they would have had their own Arab Spring, maybe sparking a civil war for a time (like what is happening in syria) and the new boss might be as bad as the old boss (egypt) but the people would have at least a chance of eventually forming a decent government. Instead, a dictator has been replaced by an occupation force and puppet government. Regardless of actual intentions, this is how it looks like to at least some members of the populace, which is why there are still bombings and terrorist acts to this day. The whole mess has also antagonized much of the arab region against the west and encouraged Iran to develop nuclear weaponry.
Re:Who's to blame? (Score:1)
Syria is an example if the mess that is coming
Because Syria is somehow worse than Iraq?
Re:Who's to blame? (Score:5, Insightful)
.Now you'll be getting the world you want, where tinpot dictators can brutalize with utter impunity [...]
Not that the US is to blame for all evils, but as a short historical reminder...
During the height of the cold war a vague claim of anti-communism apparently was enough to excuse all kinds of torture and murder.
Re:Who's to blame? (Score:1)
Yep. I mean, why Iraq? Have you noticed how the justification for that "war" kept changing over the years? It started out with Saddam and his WMD (anybody else remember "UN inspectors"...). What is it these days? Oh, Mr. Taliban and his band of booger-men.
The reality is that GW Bush lied, Colin Powell lied, Donald H. Rumsfeld lied, and the whole thing was just a big trainwreck that was supposed to make somebody look good. What are we left with? Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, more active Taliban than ever and a muslim world that's more pissed off than ever. Oh, and more government surveillance than ever...and the TSA to make you all stand in line and be groped (even the children).
Yeah, we know, you're just a bunch of harmless goofballs...
Re:Who's to blame? (Score:2)
What are we left with? A restarted Sunni/Shia war! Iraq, Syria and soon Iran.
Now ask yourself: If our intent was to restart the thousand year old Sunni/Shia war, could we have said that out loud?
Re:Who's to blame? (Score:2)
Yep. I mean, why Iraq? Have you noticed how the justification for that "war" kept changing over the years? It started out with Saddam and his WMD (anybody else remember "UN inspectors"...)
We more or less knew he had them because he used them at Halabja, and as recently as 1991:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction#Chemical_weapon_attacks [wikipedia.org]
See also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frans_van_Anraat [wikipedia.org]
Re:Who's to blame? (Score:1)
And it won't make a lick of difference
Because we've got the bombs, okay? John Wayne's not dead
He's frozen and as soon as we find the cure for cancer
We're gonna thaw out the duke and he's gonna be pretty pissed off
You know why? Have you ever taken a cold shower?
Well multiple that by 15 million times
That's how pissed off the Duke's gonna be
Re:Who's to blame? (Score:1)
We're not responsible for this shit - YOU ARE because you're too cowardly to stand up to us.
And that is how we're going to rule this fucking world and enslave you all - NSA, CIA, an army of politicians, and your own complacency.
Only Russia and China really stand any chance of remaining sovereign.
The rest of you guys? Bwahahahahaha. Pathetic.
Re:Who's to blame? (Score:2)
Re:Who's to blame? (Score:2)
I needed a new heel for my shoe. So I decided to go to Morganville, which is what they called Shelbyville in those days. So I tied an onion to my belt. Which was the style at the time. Now, to take the ferry cost a nickel, and in those days, nickels had pictures of bumblebees on 'em. Gimme five bees for a quarter, you'd say. Now where was I... oh yeah. The important thing was that I had an onion tied to my belt, which was the style at the time.
Not cooling, global waming! (Score:1, Funny)
Didn't anyone hand out the talking points? Coal causes CO2 emissions and global warming, not cooling! Please people, let's stay on script.
Re:Not cooling, global waming! (Score:2)
Re:Not cooling, global waming! (Score:2)
I wish people would start talking about idea pollution. Between religions, vested interests, various ideologies, and plain failing education systems, the world is full of stupid ideas. Why does it take a mathematician to write "if a lot of people make a small change, the overall outcome will be a small change" ? (he was arguing against the usual green narrative about how we can individually make a difference). I rarely use the word "stupid" but it seems there is a long way to go towards people learning how to think about problems.
Various movements have taken what should be a basic technical problem solving exercise and thought they could improve on that process by turning it into a moralistic social behavioural modification project (thus injecting their own preconceived moralisms into it). This is like the Taliban deciding the way to feed people and improve their standard of living is to drive for a return to the sayings of a political ideology from a thousand years ago. Then when it doesn't work as expected their answer is to shoot some more people.
Re:Not cooling, global waming! (Score:2)
Behaviour modification may actually be necessary. The act of switching off your desk lamp when you leave the desk may not save the world, but it should hopefully encourage a better state of mindfulness about the effects of our actions. Once we've learned to recognise that we can and do have an effect, we will hopefully be more likely to think about the big things.
On the other hand, there is the problem of those small actions becoming us "doing our bit" and instead stopping us from being mindful. It is hard to find a balance.
Re:From the Ministry of Truth (Score:3)
Newspeak?
Re:From the Ministry of Truth (Score:1)
obama campaign slogan
Re:From the Ministry of Truth (Score:2)
Re:Not cooling, global waming! (Score:1)
I've seen some questions raised on how much pollution in the 20th century masked global warming. I think this study shows just how much a relatively small change to a regional temperature can cause comparatively large changes in the area's climate. It should help support the potential changes that could come from a change of only a couple of degrees over the next century.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Not cooling, global waming! (Score:2)
Re:Not cooling, global waming! (Score:1)
if enough people sit around the campfire smoking joints they might give off enough heat to produce steam to turn a turbine and generate electricity
meanwhile china will be taking over the world... oh wait they basically already have
even if america decides it really has a problem with china, there is dick it can do because china has likely already bought all the political clout that american politicians can sell
if china needs a few bullion dollars to buy off more of america, they can just cash in some of their $1+ trillion is US treasuries
Re:Not cooling, global waming! (Score:1)
That's a tricky bit, though.
China, to 'cash in a few billion dollars' has to get it from the US. Squeezing blood from a rock is what that makes me think of.
Admittedly the above keeps the peace right now. China becoming a hostile military force could cause the US to just nullify the debt. I don't think the Chinese bondholders want to be stiffed.
Re:Not cooling, global waming! (Score:1)
China, to 'cash in a few billion dollars' has to get it from the US. Squeezing blood from a rock is what that makes me think of
If the Chinese decide they want something from America, they just need to call in a favor from their fellow Shanghai Cooperation Organisation buddy Russia and America will have to either roll over or fight the most populous nation and biggest economic and production powerhouse on earth (China) combined with the country that is the most armed to the teeth with nukes and rockets on earth (Russia)... all while being basically bankrupt with little production capacity itself, and it's NATO buddies aren't in much better shape.
The US may think it can "nullify the debt" but the Chinese won't just wipe $1+ trillion off their books. America will end up paying one way or another.
Re:Not cooling, global waming! (Score:2)
Even the most generous estimates show that even if we throw trillions we don't have at it with current tech renewables will only provide at most around 30% of the US power needs
Actually a few trillion into wind would cover half of global energy requirements, and solar has much much more potential. http://www.udel.edu/udaily/2013/sep/wind-energy-potential-091012.html [udel.edu]
Re:Not cooling, global waming! (Score:2)
The thing is, everyone complains about NIMBYs until its their back yard. You don't want a powerplant? You NIMBY! You don't want a landfill site? You NIMBY. You don't want an open-cast mine? You NIMBY! ... You want to knock down my village and harvest shale oil from underneath? Over my dead body!
Here's the reality for you: industrial development has always been built on sh*tting on someone else. Our "democracies" have descended into "dictatorships of the majority, where 9 people from far off will sell another person's back yard against his wishes.
Have you ever heard of "do unto others as you would have them do unto you"...? If we lived by that principle we would all be NIYBYs -- not in your back yard. Which would be better, even though we'd all have less "stuff".
Re:Not cooling, global waming! (Score:3)
Sorry but power won't generate itself and NIMBYs have made damned sure we ain't building any nuclear power plants so what else can you do?
I can't speak for anyone else, but I do not support current nuclear power systems anywhere on the planet, but I will support nuclear power anywhere on the planet if we start reprocessing waste. As long as the waste is a problem we're just deferring to our descendants, it is unacceptable. So what can we do? Start reprocessing waste. It's the only rational way to handle our nuclear waste, and it's the only kind of reactor that will see any green support. How "odd" that it's the one kind of reactor we won't build.
This is why the USA ain't gonna do shit, its because we CAN'T do shit thanks to the NIMBYs every damned where. the Greenies
Your pathetic name-calling achieves nothing. Grow the fuck up, kid.
The simple truth is that this is a created situation. Who is profiting from it?
Re:Not cooling, global waming! (Score:2)
Sorry but power won't generate itself and NIMBYs have made damned sure we ain't building any nuclear power plants so what else can you do?
I can't speak for anyone else, but I do not support current nuclear power systems anywhere on the planet, but I will support nuclear power anywhere on the planet if we start reprocessing waste. As long as the waste is a problem we're just deferring to our descendants, it is unacceptable. So what can we do? Start reprocessing waste. It's the only rational way to handle our nuclear waste, and it's the only kind of reactor that will see any green support. How "odd" that it's the one kind of reactor we won't build.
"On April 7, 1977, President Jimmy Carter announced that the United States would defer indefinitely the reprocessing of spent nuclear reactor fuel. He stated that after extensive examination of the issues, he had reached the conclusion that this action was necessary to reduce the serious threat of nuclear weapons proliferation, and that by setting this example, the U. S. would encourage other nations to follow its lead."
Technically, this policy was push by the environmental lobby:
"Environmental groups saw the breeder as a danger. An unlimited source of energy, they feared, would mean more energy use and waste, leading to more global environmental degradation and also opening new risks for proliferation of nuclear weapons."
See the whole story here: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/reaction/readings/rossin.html [pbs.org]
Comment removed (Score:3)
Re:Not cooling, global waming! (Score:2)
I often hear this argument about NIMBYs, but I wonder how much of a problem that actually is. I'm sure you are right that there will be protests no matter what kind of power plant you want to build, but, in the meantime, around the world (and I believe in the USA, too), fossil fuel burning power plants are still being built. Looks to me like you can get stuff done despite the NIMBYs.
Re:Not cooling, global waming! (Score:2)
His point was that China can do it faster cheaper and more intelligently, assuming they have a good understanding of the tech. Here in Europe, today's news is The Guardian complaining about the visual pollution of wind farms, and the BBC reporting about the Energy Minister and allegations about bribes from renewable energy companies.
Comment removed (Score:2)
Comment removed (Score:2)
Re:Not cooling, global waming! (Score:2)
The last troops left Iraq in December 2011. There aren't even so much as trainers. The only military in-country consists of about 160 Marines on embassy duty.
It's PAYBACK (Score:5, Funny)
Payback, that is, for all the hurricanes they send us every year. Suck on it, Africa.
Re:It's PAYBACK (Score:2)
Payback, that is, for all the hurricanes they send us every year. Suck on it, Africa.
Oh izzit?
Batten down the hatches, boys. Hurricane season next year might be a bit... uncomfortable...
Obvious solution (Score:5, Funny)
Burn more coal in the southern hemisphere, and push the rain back north...
Re:Obvious solution (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Obvious solution (Score:3, Funny)
What could possibly go wrong?
I call B.S. (Score:1, Flamebait)
Coriolis effect. Next FUD!
Re:I call B.S. (Score:2)
Brownian motion!
Re:I call B.S. (Score:2)
That sounds racist.
I don't think this is the whole story (Score:5, Interesting)
This [wisc.edu] goes much further into explaining some of the variance, both seasonal and longish-term (only goes back to the Fifties), of water table levels in the entire Chad basin - a system that covers a tenth of the entire African continent, not just a relatively small body of surface water. The human impact, according to that paper, accounts for about one twentieth of the total variance in the system but as much as 40% of the surface area of the lake itself (and up to half the volume), with most of that variance originating upstream in tributary river systems. AGW is barely even considered (or even mentioned, going by a quick scan down the paper), since the effects of AGW, if it even exists, have not been or cannot currently be measured because until it is properly defined, nobody even knows what to look for. It does deal with precipitation, which has had a bit of a lull over recent decades (1985-1994 being particularly dry years), but again this deals with the entire system not just the lake.
It's about consequences ... (Score:4, Interesting)
Personally, I don't buy into the global warming camp or anti-climate change camp. I recognize that the system in question is far too complex for us to understand with certainty. I also recognize that the system is "easy" to understand within statistical certainties, which are not reported often enough. I am also sane enough to recognize that my education in astrophysics only gives me some understanding into the issues of anthropomorphic climate change, rather than a complete understanding of it. I also recognize that my education gives me less understanding in it than climatologists, yet more understanding in it than scientists who never deal with problems at a planetary scale.
Yet one thing I am certain of: actions imply consequences. The consequences may be positive, negative, or neutral. Whatever the outcome, we must make an attempt to understand it. Our best means of understanding it are scientific. Political attempts to understand it only tell us if the consequences are desirable, thus they must come after scientific attempt to understand it. Other means of understanding climate change are likely based upon invalid systems of knowledge, and ought to be rejected altogether.
To make a long story short: I'd have to read the paper itself to judge the degree to which it's valid. Given that it is based upon scientific principles, I'm going to have to plead: I'm human, I have limited resources to deal with the problem presented before me, it is based upon a system of knowledge that I find acceptable (i.e. science), so I accept it.
As long as the authors are being intellectually honest, I believe that it is a valid way to accept their conclusions. (If they aren't intellectually honest, I'll hate them but still stand by the principle: actions imply consequences, now figure out what the consequences are.)
Re:It's about consequences ... (Score:4, Insightful)
When the changes affect global weather (and other) systems, the can be positive and negative, depending on your location and what period of time your looking at. It's part of why it's so difficult to measure and forecast.
Re:It's about consequences ... (Score:3, Insightful)
It's too bad that people like you are a tiny minority among the screaming hordes of the scientifically illiterate and those who take everything "scientific" they read at face value.
Re:It's about consequences ... (Score:5, Insightful)
So if, say, 50% of scientific papers are "intellectually honest," and 97% of scientific papers addressing climate change conclude that anthropogenic factors are the main drivers of variance over the last century or more, then how can you not "buy into the global warming camp"?
Isn't the whole "anti-climate change camp" devoted to the notion that there is such a thing as major, wide-spread actions without consequences, contrary to your major assertion? Because on the level of global climate, somehow man's actions are perpetually too small to effect it, or a deity will counter any potential harm we do, or the planet will magically turn every potential disadvantage to advantage, or the like?
Re:It's about consequences ... (Score:3, Insightful)
You've nailed it. It's driven by the creationist idiots that think God created a perfect unchanging world so any suggestion of change is a spit in God's eye. It's a pity they think their God is so limited.
Re:It's about consequences ... (Score:3, Interesting)
It's driven by the creationist idiots that think God created a perfect unchanging world so any suggestion of change is a spit in God's eye.
I know it's wrong to try to respond to flamebait, but you have it backwards. It's the people who think that the way the world is right this very minute is the way it is always supposed to be and we must do everything we can to keep it static that are the problem, and they aren't the religious nuts, they're the eco-nuts. They admit that they know about ice ages and the lush, tropical periods that the dinosaurs flourished in, but somehow today is perfect and no change, man-made OR natural, can be allowed to happen. Yes, it was different before, but it can no longer be different because we like it the way it is.
They're the ones bemoaning the extinction of species that no longer fit the climate or environment, and trying to build seawalls to stop the ocean from eroding that spit that developed a mere fifty years ago, but they've built their home on it and it must be preserved because it's "natural" and that's how it has "always been". The very people who hurl insults at "those religious nuts" for not accepting Evolution as the origin of life are the ones who try to stop true evolution and survival of the fittest from happening.
It's a pity they think their God is so limited.
Backwards again. Religious people know God isn't limited. It's the atheists who cannot fathom a God with powers they cannot personally understand or account for.
You don't see the religious right out protesting for carbon cap and trade or against energy users or producers. They know better. Change happens. It is Hope and Change doesn't.
Re:It's about consequences ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Pointing out a flaw in a Christianity Lite franchise that's really all about money and control is not the same as going after everyone with a belief.
You've read far too much into a simple statement above and managed to argue about something different and attack the team you think I'm cheering for
Re:It's about consequences ... (Score:2)
we must do everything we can to keep it static
Funny how that's pretty much the definition of "Conservative" [billmcgonigle.com], eh?
and they aren't the religious nuts, they're the eco-nuts.
Those are just the useful idiots. Greenpeace, for example, who incidentally have another reason to hate nuclear power over this thing in Chad (oh, wait, no, that's the opposite).
they've built their home on it and it must be preserved
Ah, yes, now we're getting there. Northern Europe represents vast property wealth in an area that's only viable with the Gulf Stream keeping it warm. There's a fear that when the Greenland ice shelves melt again (it's eventually inevitable) the thermohaline circulation will change and deflect the Gulf Stream away from Northern Europe. In which case its environment would be like most of the other land at that latitude.
It's a small chance, but when you own a large chunk of Europe and have significant control over most of the western governments, you have no problem spending other people's money to protect your own.
The same goes for coastal areas in the US. Just like we have the National Flood Insurance Program so poor people in the US can subsidize the vacation homes of the wealthy, so too must those same people have their wealth seized on a gamble that it'll stop beach erosion. Heck, when I was a kid, the beaches all had shacks and bungalows on them (because there was a good chance of them getting destroyed by a hurricane) and now those are all gone and replaced with multi-million dollar mansions, because they can now be insured by the Feds.
Re:It's about consequences ... (Score:1)
It's driven by the creationist idiots that think God created a perfect unchanging world so any suggestion of change is a spit in God's eye.
I know it's wrong to try to respond to flamebait, but you have it backwards. It's the people who think that the way the world is right this very minute is the way it is always supposed to be and we must do everything we can to keep it static that are the problem, and they aren't the religious nuts, they're the eco-nuts. They admit that they know about ice ages and the lush, tropical periods that the dinosaurs flourished in, but somehow today is perfect and no change, man-made OR natural, can be allowed to happen. Yes, it was different before, but it can no longer be different because we like it the way it is.
They're the ones bemoaning the extinction of species that no longer fit the climate or environment, and trying to build seawalls to stop the ocean from eroding that spit that developed a mere fifty years ago, but they've built their home on it and it must be preserved because it's "natural" and that's how it has "always been". The very people who hurl insults at "those religious nuts" for not accepting Evolution as the origin of life are the ones who try to stop true evolution and survival of the fittest from happening.
It's a pity they think their God is so limited.
Backwards again. Religious people know God isn't limited. It's the atheists who cannot fathom a God with powers they cannot personally understand or account for.
You don't see the religious right out protesting for carbon cap and trade or against energy users or producers. They know better. Change happens. It is Hope and Change doesn't.
So... you're arguing that we should accept, if not our extinction as a species, at least the disruption of our civilization which relies so heavily on contingencies such as climate, and reconcile ourselves to the rebirth of the Cretaceous and a resurgence of dinosaurs and ammonites, or their more recent analogs? Geez, you are one philosophical guru.
Re:It's about consequences ... (Score:2)
Isn't the whole "anti-climate change camp" devoted to the notion that there is such a thing as major, wide-spread actions without consequences, contrary to your major assertion?
No. One has to start by not mischaracterizing the arguments. First, this sort of juvenile argument is why I recommend we don't use the phrase "climate change" in a scientific context. Here, by describing the opposition to the current theories of anthropogenic global warming or AGW and to proposed costly societal remedies as "anti-climate change" or somehow denying that any climate ever changes, which I don't think describes anything other than a very small sliver of society.
Most such opposition grants some sort of climate change, even if it's God flooding the Earth to rid the world of a bunch of sinners. And most will grant natural climate change such as the glacial and interglacial periods of the ice ages. So almost everyone grants that climate change happens and most grant that the climate has changed in the past in the way that climatologists are worried about. The global temperature can raise and lower with effect on regional weather patterns.
Going past that, some even grant that AGW happens, which is the camp I'm in. But that doesn't imply that it is better that we do something about AGW than not.
There is this huge spectrum of beliefs. It's not all people who don't believe that climate never changes and that the Earth's climate won't ever change in the future.
Second, there is a lot more than a little dishonesty in this area. For example, the repeated assertion of consensus as an indication of correctness, such as you do above. There's a lot of money available to those who can back AGW propaganda and mitigation policies.
And I assert that aggregation of paleoclimate data has been taken over by these particular forces. Interpretation of the climates of the past is pretty much owned by a few organizations that all depend on AGW being some sort of threat to humanity in order to obtain funding.
And then there's the money. I figure there is currently roughly tens of billions each year in public funds available to special interests as a result of concern about AGW. And that this will go up to hundreds of billions per year in the next ten to twenty years, but only if the public buys in that AGW is a clear and present danger.
So if, say, 50% of scientific papers are "intellectually honest," and 97% of scientific papers addressing climate change conclude that anthropogenic factors are the main drivers of variance over the last century or more, then how can you not "buy into the global warming camp"?
So if the current paper isn't "intellectually honest" or is dependent on a paper which isn't. Then what? Arguments such as the above are painful to read. In the advent of widespread "intellectual dishonesty," especially when that is focused on certain influential areas, then it will matter. One should have an obligation to not just "buy in". If it's not, then it won't.
It's worth noting here that the only thing the paper does is claim cause and effect from a perceived correlation between global rainfall patterns and production of carbon soot in a certain region.
Other regions (particularly India and China) have increased production of carbon soot and sulfates during this time. So we have a regional drop in sulfate production (the focus of the study), but not a corresponding global drop [certi-clean.com] in sulfate production. In that link, see the graph on page 10. Note that sulfate production is only down slightly (about 15% roughly) from its peak in 1970.
Because on the level of global climate, somehow man's actions are perpetually too small to effect it, or a deity will counter any potential harm we do, or the planet will magically turn every potential disadvantage to advantage, or the like?
No. There is also the camp that no one has demonstrated that it is better to do anything about AGW, such as inhibiting the global economy by transitioning to a society that generates less greenhouse gases.
Re:It's about consequences ... (Score:2)
Political attempts to understand it only tell us if the consequences are desirable, thus they must come after scientific attempt to understand it.
I too cannot determine on my own whether the science supporting the conclusions being discussed here is sound. On the face of it I don't have strong reason to simply discard the conclusions; presumably the work was done by intellectually honest, competent scientists.
It's the political attempts at understanding that give me some trouble. Studies like this are eagerly taken up by those who want to believe that we are "bad" people and America is a "bad" country, to be blamed for anything and everything wrong in the world ... while they (the blamers) continue to enjoy their comforts and luxuries, and a lifestyle only dreamed of by much of the rest of the world.
Re:It's about consequences ... (Score:2)
The problems aren't caused by America, the problems are caused by Mercantilism. The problem isn't big screen TVs and big screen phones, the problem is that there is no "away" but the whole world acts as if there were.
I suppose you can still throw away glass, the world makes plenty of sand and glass isn't particularly harmful... but if we refilled it like we used to, we'd be using less energy. And that's why the world is going to hell in a handbasket, and has been as long as we have been living in cities; our energy policies are wasteful. That, of course, and misuse of irrigation and other agricultural technologies.
Re:It's about consequences ... (Score:2, Insightful)
I don't buy into the global warming camp or anti-climate change camp. I recognize that the system in question is far too complex for us to understand with certainty.
However, the latter is all the anti-AGW camp wants from you. Just wait. Do nothing. Delay. That's why they exist.
I accept AGW science because it is the most hammered and hated field of science since evolution and yet, like evolutionary biology, it keeps on producing results. A good dumb-guy's-test of this is to look at level the two sides are working at: As in, say, cosmology, where the "big bang camp" are looking at subtle patterns in the CMB data to work out fine details of early inflation, or stretch into fringes like multiverse theory, meanwhile the "steady state camp" are still stuck arguing "is not!". Here we have AGW theorists talking about single region cooling events, caused by secondary climate effects, while the anti-AGW camp is still trying to argue whether CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
anthropomorphic climate change
Anthropogenic. "Caused by", not "Resembles".
Anthropomorphic climate change is when people see animus in weather events. "Mother Earth is finally waking up and scratching off the parasite of humanity", or "God sent this to punish us for gays in the military".
old news(very) (Score:1)
Dalhousie already did it. (Score:2)
Talk about taking credit for someone else's work. Without going through the paywall I can't see if the much earlier work was properly cited but regardless they are making it sound like this is a groundbreaking discovery as opposed to confirming and probably increasing the detail of previous work.
Bono (Score:2)
We all know it was Bono and all that clapping of his hands
coal did what? (Score:2)
I think anyone blaming a specific change in regional weather/climate on specific human causes is full of themself.
Something to think about.. (Score:2)
Between the great Pacific Ocean Garbage Patch, air pollution, huge deforestations and water pollution, well, let's stop fooling ourselves about our 'negligible' impact.
Won't even go in the wildflife and the habitats we have endangered for all kinds of reasons, including many gas and oil spills, or the many species of animals, insects, plants etc, which we have seeded in area where there is now a disbalance.
Bottom line, we are not helping, because we are NOT in harmony with nature. In an undisturbed area, you find there is a healthy balance between predators and prey.
We just go where we want and we just multiply without thinking about the resources we use. I think sometimes we are more like a virus than an animal.
Anyways, money won't mean much if we can't have a planet to live on.
So maybe we as humanity should stop thinking in terms of barriers and segregation of people and we should really start working together at fixing this mess we've created. Not in the name of profit, but in the name of survival. For the sake of the generations to come, our kids and their progeny.
Life is what we make out of it, let's stop the bankers and big corps from dictating how we should live and let's do what's right.
The only solution: energy cheaper than coal (Score:1)
And cleaner. And safer. There's only one to choose,
Robert Hargraves - Thorium Energy Cheaper than Coal @ ThEC12
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ayIyiVua8cY [youtube.com]
Screw the overblown 'proliferation issues', which are used by governments all over the world as blunt billy clubs to discourage the development of cleaner, better nuclear energy and its alternative methods, while the chosen few use a false moral high ground to perpetuate a condition of endless war for oil. There is already enough processed uranium and spent nuclear fuel out there to make bombs.
Isn't it time we begin to make electricity with it?
And bring the entire world up to a standard of living that is reasonable by our own personal standards, not those politicians impose upon the less-developed areas of the world. Just sayin.'
The journey begins here. [slashdot.org] It's quite a trip.
Re:Coal burning still a problem today (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Coal burning still a problem today (Score:1)
don't forget that the USA is also a communist dictatorship... just by a different name
Re:Coal burning still a problem today (Score:2, Funny)
please! Communist dictatorships have universal healthcare. We're clearly facist state.
Re:Coal burning still a problem today (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Coal burning still a problem today (Score:1)
Furthermore, while these coal fired plants undoubtedly raise C02 levels the science of climatic feedback is so poorly understood it is not known whether those will be significant compared to the most significant 'greenhouse gas' - water vapour.
It may have escaped your notice but there are large areas of open water on this planet.
Water vapour in the atmosphere is in equilibrium with the oceans.
The only way of increasing the water vapour in the atmosphere is to increase the temperature.... whoops!
Re:Coal burning still a problem today (Score:2)
Furthermore, while these coal fired plants undoubtedly raise C02 levels the science of climatic feedback is so poorly understood it is not known whether those will be significant compared to the most significant 'greenhouse gas' - water vapour.
...and there we have it. Eighties environmentalism turned out to be complicated and nuanced for most of the planet, so we collectively fixated on the greenhouse effect. Pollution != greenhouse effect.. Coal pollutes in many horrible ways, ejecting soot, sulfur, mercury and all sorts of nasty things into the atmosphere. These things are very well understood, unlike the greenhouse effect, and TFA is about particulate pollution, not carbon dioxide. If you argue against cutting coal usage on the grounds of the greenhouse effect, you are willfully living in ignorance of good, proper, hard science.
Re:Coal burning still a problem today (Score:3)
carbon dioxide dissolved in water forms carbonic acid. Useful for respiration, but bad for the oceans (ocean acidification).
Re:Coal burning still a problem today (Score:2)
Coal burning is not the problem by itself; coal power plants in the US have pretty effective particular filters. The US has lower particulate counts than Switzerland or Luxembourg, and about a third of the particulate count of China.
Re:Coal burning still a problem today (Score:2)
Coal burning is not the problem by itself; coal power plants in the US have pretty effective particular filters.
I know personally an ex-stack-climber who says that literally everything he ever sampled was over all the numbers. Everything. Over. That included waste processing plants, coal power plants, factories, etc etc.
The US has lower particulate counts than Switzerland or Luxembourg, and about a third of the particulate count of China.
What do you mean "The US"? What do you mean "China"? These are big places, with highly unevenly distributed pollution.
Re:Coal burning still a problem today (Score:2)
You can look at total emissions or particular counts in populated areas, they both tell the same story. Go look it up. It's a standard statistic for air quality.
Re:Coal burning still a problem today (Score:5, Informative)
You know, I live in the deep South and I've never once in my 53 years heard that term used that way until just now.
Re:Coal burning still a problem today (Score:1)
You know, I live in the deep South and I've never once in my 53 years heard that term used that way until just now.
Seems to go back at least to 1996 when it was used in the (excellent) Kiefer Sutherland movie "Freeway."
http://www.rsdb.org/slur/coal-burner [rsdb.org]
Re:Coal burning still a problem today (Score:2)
Re:Coal burning still a problem today (Score:2)
Oh I didn't say I'd never heard anything derogatory. 99% of the time though it's just something like "she likes dark meat." That, generally, was enough to make sure no white guy would ever ask her out again.
Re:Coal burning still a problem today (Score:2)
That's because the Deep South has other, even more derogatory terms. That and they would make fun of a white woman who sleeps with a black man 50 years ago; they'd beat her senseless or string her up too.
Thanks for helping to give us Yankees a reputation as a different sort of bigot. Damn, never thought I'd be defending the Deep South, but you've proved me wrong. Hint: things can change in 50 years.
Re:Coal burning still a problem today (Score:1)
so what does that make "gold-diggers"?
Re:Coal burning still a problem today (Score:2)
However - "coal-burning" is also a slang term for ...
Right, while you're at it why don't you lecture use on the supposed racist etymology of the word "picnic".
Re:Oh no... (Score:2)
Particles from coal-burning factories in the United States and Europe during the 1960s, '70s and '80s cooled the entire Northern Hemisphere
But, at the same time, the article says:
People living in the Northern Hemisphere did not notice the cooling, the authors said, because it balanced the heating associated with the greenhouse effect from increased carbon dioxide, so temperatures were steady.
If temperatures were steady, there was no cooling.
Re:Oh no... (Score:2)
Doing Science! [youtube.com]
Re:Oh no... (Score:5, Interesting)
Having said all that, climate scientists don't really talk about cooling or warming, they talk about +ve and -ve forcing and feedback [wikipedia.org], two forcings with different signs can indeed cancel each other out. To confuse matters further CO2 can be both a forcing (humans, volcanoes) and a feedback (melting permafrost, increased bushfires). Feedbacks have far more uncertainty associated with them than forcings. When everything is taken into account you can work out a figure called "climate sensitivity" (CS). The CS in models compares very well with the CS derived from geology and really hasn't changed that much since the 70's.
All this is just a sample of the complexity that adds up to ripe pickings for people who have no problem deliberately misinforming the public for personal gain [sourcewatch.org].
Re:Oh no... (Score:2)
Re:Because we all thought CO2 can't cross the equa (Score:2)
You failed to comprehend what you read. The pollution from burning coal caused hemispherical cooling for the Northern part of the globe. Sad to admit but I'm unable to understand how cooling the Northern hemisphere caused global warming but I'm sure some of the geniuses around here will be glad to explain it to me. Too bad about Africa. It seems like whitey has been shafting them for a few centuries now. The slave trade, then the European powers carved the continent into provinces and raped the resources for their own benefit then throwing them unprepared into nationhood with no money and no prospects. Now through exploitation of coal for energy they've had their climate drastically changed. Life sucks, then you die.
Re:Because we all thought CO2 can't cross the equa (Score:1, Troll)
http://sheikyermami.com/2013/03/23/sex-slaves-are-not-forbidden-by-islam/ [sheikyermami.com]
Re:BLAH BLAH BLAH... (Score:2)
Thank you, Captain Obvious.
Re:simple question (Score:1)