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."
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: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: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.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
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".
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:The real question.. (Score:5, Insightful)
what can we expect from the pollution China is dishing out?
lots of black pots and kettles
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: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: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.