Climate Change Doubles Drought Stricken Area 287
Cally writes "The National Atmospheric Research Center has published research showing that the percentage of Earth's land area stricken by serious drought more than doubled from the 1970s to the early 2000s, and attributing this to global climate change. Interestingly, the lead author comments that 'droughts and floods are extreme climate events that are likely to change more rapidly than the average climate'."
it's constantly changing! (Score:2, Insightful)
"Shouldn't" in what context? (Score:2)
I don't see why humans shouldn't seek to make the global climate better for us. If moving to resist global warming (whether 'natural' or not) helps us make the world a better place for sustaining our life then it sounds like a reasonable idea on the face of it.
Saying "it's been happening from the dawn of time" is stupid. So have tsunamis. So has disease. It
Re:"Shouldn't" in what context? (Score:2)
What you're actually doing is taking the 'heat' and moving it outside into the external environment, heating up the outside world by a miniscule amount. The amount of heat you generate by cooling your room is actually greater than the decrease inside, due to inevitable inefficiencies in the system. It's literally a heat exchanger.
So are you proposing some so
Re:"Shouldn't" in what context? (Score:2)
Re:"Shouldn't" in what context? (Score:2)
Re:"Shouldn't" in what context? (Score:2)
Why not? Earth as a whole sit's at ~300 deg kelven block say 1percent of incomeing energy and you drop around 5 deg C.
So: (3963.19 * 3963.19 * pi ) *.01 =493,446.03 sq miles. Or 18585 * 493,000 = 9 billion Roll's of Reynolds Wrap Heavy Duty Aluminum Foil - 18'' x 1000'.
Now all this needs to be in orbit with some way of keeping things aligned and overhead so the total weight may be 10 times that but it's still posible... or Not.
Anyway, as bad as tha
Re:it's constantly changing! (Score:2)
Like, I know, and look at all those particle physicists writing papers about atomic reactions that have been changing from the dawn of time.
Hint: find out the difference between climate and weather. Differentiating between the two is what the climatologists are trying to do here.
Re: it's constantly changing! (Score:2)
> from the dawn of time the climate has been changing! what makes them think it shouldn't now?
We're going to suffer the consequences regardless. It seems that we're being forced into the terraforming business whether we want to or not.
Why stop now, (Score:2)
Climate arguments are like war in the Middle East. The people can't live happily without it.
Re:it's constantly changing! (Score:2)
I'm sure you're just trolling for comments, and here's one more to consider:
From the dawn of time people have died of hunger and disease. What makes us think we shouldn't now?
Re:it's constantly changing! (Score:3, Informative)
Re:it's constantly changing! (Score:3, Informative)
Right. Then read Jurassic Park to learn the facts about resurrecting dinosaurs... The guy is a novellist. He's manufacturing controversy
Re:it's constantly changing! (Score:2)
Are you serious? 1) His "fans" by definition won't "rip the book apart". Pleanty of critics have though. 2) Techno-thrillers have a veneer of scintific versmilitude -- part of the fun is seeing where the author starts making stuff up. You might as well try to learn medicine from ER (C
Re:it's constantly changing! (Score:2)
Fiction is right.
Can't Blame Global Warming? (Score:3, Interesting)
Global warming produces increased precipitation.
So what's changing the wind patterns?
Re:Can't Blame Global Warming? (Score:3, Interesting)
Um, read the article? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Can't Blame Global Warming? (Score:2)
Re:Can't Blame Global Warming? (Score:2, Informative)
Not according to this page: [nodak.edu] Present-day carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from subaerial and submarine volcanoes are uncertain at the present time. Gerlach (1991) estimated a total global release of 3-4 x 10E12 mol/yr from volcanoes. This is a conservative estimate. Man-made (anthropogenic) CO2 emissions overwhelm this estimate by at least 150 times.
It is amazing that folks will repeat a
Re:Can't Blame Global Warming? (Score:2)
Whihc scientist? Name him.
Re:Can't Blame Global Warming? (Score:5, Insightful)
I mean I know the phrase "global warming" sounds like the temperature everywhere will just increase by a degree or so, but jesus christ, why doesn't anyone ever take a few moments out to learn what it really does before forming an opinion on it.
Re:Can't Blame Global Warming? (Score:2)
Hmm... 691306... you're new here, aren't you. Welcome to slashdot, where the ability to (insert preferred menial technical activity) makes you an instant expert on every topic under the sun, from business practices, the law, IC engineering, and... (the favourite hangout for the ill-informed trolls) climate change and modelling!
To be f
Not entirely true. (Score:2)
Reflective areas reflect the heat, so creating warmer air. This means it is less likely to rain in such places. The air holds onto the moisture it has that much better. Reflective areas are typically desert regions, so those regions will become even dryer. (The Arctic and Antarctic are considered cold deserts, as the total amount of precipitation is extremely low.)
Absorptive areas hold o
Re:Can't Blame Global Warming? (Score:2)
Global warming, of course.
Not that, as others have pointed out, that changes in wind patterns are the only things causing increased drought; but the atmsophere is a heat engine, and wind is (by and large) air moved by heat differential - in other words, convection. The hotter the atmosphere, the m
how about "global crapification"? (Score:2)
"IT" is called global warming. "Climate change" is the vague spin term republicans and neoliberals use to deny that global warming exists and try to make it sound normal.
The average temperature of the earth is increasing.
That is what WARMING means.
Additionally, added energy to the system has been modeled to increase extreame weather events.
And what is this "added energy"?
The earth isn't spinning any f
Re:Can't Blame Global Warming? (Score:2)
Maybe we should stop flapping our lips.
Maybe the Droughts are causing the climate change? (Score:5, Interesting)
Neither chicken nor egg (Score:2)
Re:Neither chicken nor egg (Score:2)
To a degree. (Score:3, Informative)
Any time any radiation travels through the air, a certain fraction will get absorbed. This means that all that newly-reflected energy will result in the air becoming much warmer than it would otherwise have done.
This does not mi
Re:Maybe the Droughts are causing the climate chan (Score:2)
Actually, the places with the most long term record of rainfall and pollution are the least developed in the world. They are the north and south poles, where core samples can show relative snow fall (i.e. rainfall) and greenhouse gasses/other forms of pollution. One of the people I worked with did a PhD in the 1980's that showed that there have been substantial increases to the average temperature
Re:Maybe the Droughts are causing the climate chan (Score:2)
Wet West Texas (Score:2, Informative)
Tim
Re:Wet West Texas (Score:2)
Re: Wet West Texas (Score:2)
> I don't know about most places but my part of West Texas went from 9 inches or rain in 2003, to more that 53 inches of rain in 2004. Thats the most rain that my county has seen since it was settled in the early 1900's.
For whatever anecdotes are worth, both my hometown and my current domicile now experience longer dry spells punctuated by brief but intense wet spells compared to what they had a few decades ago. Overall my hometown has gotten drier, but oddly the net precipitation where I live now has
The climate went apeshit (Score:2, Interesting)
Ah, I'm just 26, so that "when I was a kid" is not that far ago. Such a r
Re:The climate went apeshit (Score:2)
The world climate hasn't changed a lot, your local climate has. Natural fluctuations means someplaces get hotter, some places get cooler, but overall there is very little difference in the climate. If the overall temperature or weather patterns change even by a little, you'll see catastrophic l
Re:The climate went apeshit (Score:2)
And some of our societies even have a tradition of literature. Through the written word, we can know conditions long before the birth of any member of our society.
It is thus that we know that SOME SHIT AIN'T RIGHT. Locally, I know that Wisconsin has had
Re:The climate went apeshit (Score:2)
I also remember that when I was a little kid, snowbanks would reach well above my head, nowadays it hardly ever reaches above my knee.
Re:The climate went apeshit (Score:3, Funny)
Well, I'm afraid that's not due to a climate change.
It's because you grew taller.
Re:The climate went apeshit (Score:2)
Re:The climate went apeshit (Score:2)
I'd like to see what has happened with these drought stricken areas over the past 50 years, past 100 years, and past 200 years. Let's see what the overall effect is. Otherwise it is no different than saying, today it was 55F, last week it was 35F. The world's climate is changing by 20F/week!
Remember, the weather is allowed to chang
Drought and land use?? (Score:5, Insightful)
This seems very wrong = central U.S. wetter (Score:3, Interesting)
It says the central U.S. is wetter but the man made lakes in western Nebraska are toast - McConaughy is at something like 32% of full and they're going to dry up three smaller downstream lakes to keep it at least partially full next summer.
Maybe its a fifty year average and the last five have been bad
Global climate change? or changes? (Score:2)
Re: Global climate change? or changes? (Score:3, Insightful)
> I'm more inclined to believe that the shit we pump into the atmosphere, combined with the earth changing naturally, is going to cause more extremes. Not warming or cooling, but more extremes more often. More droughts, more floods, more snowstorms, more of anything but normal weather conditions.
Global warming = more thermal energy in the atmosphere. IANAPlanetologist, but I wouldn't be the least surprised to find that more thermal energy --> more meterological extremes.
NARC? (Score:2)
Thirty Years Ago - Newsweek Article (Score:2)
Pretty soon, it will be back in vogue again...
Global warming (Score:3, Informative)
1. A lot of scientific theories have been very popular and well accepted for quite a while before they are disproven. Epicycles. The aether. Phlogiston. Eugenics. Cold fusion. The coming ice age in the 70's. So wide acceptance by itself doesn't give me a warm fuzzy feeling.
2. Having been a university professor for a while, I understand the intense conflict of interest that researchers experience. On the one hand, climatologists would like to tell the truth. On the other hand, they know beyond the shadow of a doubt that if they held a conference tomorrow and all agreed that global warming wasn't happening, their lives and the lives of their families would all change for the worse. They would lose funding and graduate students, their salaries would drop, they'd have more trouble publishing papers, they'd have to teach more undergraduate classes, some would not get tenure, etc. So there is a huge incentive to interpret ambiguous data in such a way as to keep the global warming in the news.
3. The data is very noisy and ambiguous. Climatologists are trying to pull a trend out of data that has a lot of natural variation, that has a lot of measurment error, and that is very incomplete. Also, since global warming is now the "standard" view, journal reviewers will examine papers that do not tend to support global warming a lot more carefully than papers that do support global warming. If your paper weakly supports global warming, it is much more likely to be published than a paper that weakly undermines global warming. ("Extraordinary results require extranordinary evidence.")
4. The theory keeps changing. It is not longer just warming. It's almost any change in climate at all. More hurricanes than average? Fewer hurricanes than average? The Sahara is growing? The Sahara is shrinking? The US midwest is getting drier? Getting wetter? The theory of global warming has gotten so flexible that all these scenarios are apparently consistent with it. If a theory predicts anything then it has no predictive power at all.
Re:Global warming (Score:2)
Do we know that increased CO2 is correlated with global temperature? I won't say either way because I haven't read a paper on the topic.
Should we be concerned that *maybe*, just *maybe* our activities might be rendering the planet unlivable? I think so. If there were a 1 in 1000 chance buying car make X would result in a fatal (for you) car accident, would
Re:Global warming (Score:2, Insightful)
I also disagree with your other points:
1. A lot of theories were popular and well accepted before they are disproven. True, but a lot more theories are accepted and turn out to be true. Also, a LOT of theories are not well accepted and turn out to be wrong. If you are not a climate scientist, this cannot be an argument AGIANST global warming.
2. As a university professor, you know that a theory is only as strong as the argument
Re:Global Warming? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Global Warming? (Score:3, Informative)
Also, there has been a good bit of discussion that it's possible that the melting of the ice on the polar ice caps is diluting the salt of the oceans, causing the Gulf Stream to change course. That would have the effect of reducing the temper
Re:Global Warming? (Score:2)
Sure it's volatile, but we humans are one quite a big variable. But we're a special variable, because we can conciously control what kind of variable we are. Or try to... Which entire global warming debate i
Re:Global Warming? (Score:2)
Re:drought? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:drought? (Score:3, Insightful)
We will always be able to find a way for the data to support the theory that there is no global climate change. First of all, there is just is not enough data on record to say anything with absolute certainty.
Is this really drought, or are we returning to normal after a few good rain years?
You can also make the argument that you can't just look at areas labeled drought stricken, you have to look across the board at all the areas and counter those areas with below average precipitation with those areas th
Re:drought? (Score:5, Insightful)
I used to think exactly that until I saw a show on the Discovery Channel about the deep sea current that flows from the North Atlantic to the SW Pacific.
Yes, my source is a TV show.
It clearly explained (in terms a CS guy could understand) how the threat of global warming is NOT rising temperatures and rising sea levels, but rather a decrease in the salinity of the North Atlantic which will disrupt the deep sea current. The result of this will be a dramatic and nearly immedate end to the moderation of climates enjoyed around the world - basically everywhere north of the Tropic of Cancer and south of the Tropic of Capricorn will experience an ice age while the equatorial region will become a desert that makes the Sahara look quaint.
I'm not prepared to argue the merits or weaknesses of such conjecture, but The Discovery channel sure as hell convinced me - to my (climatology amateur yet) analytical mind, the arguments all stacked up. The salinity situation is all but impossible to refute and the climate data culled from Antarctic glacier ice cores indicates that sudden radical shifts in Earth's climate into an ice age are nothing if not typical.
By the way - if somebody knows what I'm talking about and has a good link to the material, I'd love to see it. Telling people about the TV show I saw that one time gets old.
Re:drought? (Score:5, Informative)
All this talk about historic climate change is like an ant talking about the nature of an elephant. We are too small, and the details are too big. To hear environmentalists talk about it, we are on the verge of disaster, but to hear geologists talk about it, we are just barely coming out of the last ice age. From a geological standpoint, everything I have read about says that our planet should be about 10 degrees warmer than what it is today. We're coming out of 'abnormal' climtes, and apparently inching back toward 'normal'. A google on "cenozoic ice age" will be instructive, as is this page: http://www.museum.state.il.us/exhibits/ice_ages/ [state.il.us] "During most of the last 1 billion years the globe had no permanent ice." North and south pole ice is an anomaly.
Re:drought? (Score:2)
That may be true, but what is significant is that human beings did not evolve during that perio
Re:drought? (Score:2)
First off, the thesis of the idea being discussed here is that essential
Re:drought (Score:2)
It is the rapid change that can be damaging. When the climat changes faster than the eco-system (or human society) can adapt, bad shit happens.
Re:drought? (Score:5, Interesting)
Google the following:
Thermohaline Circulation
Younger Dryas
Lake Agassiz
If deep convection in the Labrador/Greenland sea ceases, the Gulf Stream will cease and England will get mighty chilly. Roughly speaking, if you don't have cold, salty water sinking downward in this region, no surface currents will move to fill the void (kind of like plugging the drain in the bathtub).
As the northern hemisphere began coming out of the last glacial maximum about 13,000 years ago, it abruptly became colder again - slammed back into the cold regime. A leading hypothesis as to why this occurred is that a lot of ice was melting in modern-day Canada the northern US and forming a large lake (Lake Agassiz). Suddenly, the dam broke (probalby down the St. Lawrence) and a gazillion gallons of fresh water was spilled into the North Atlantic, creating a freshwater "lid" which kept the surface waters from getting dense enough to convect downward like they do sporadically today.
I did some post-doc modeling research on deep convection in the Greenland Sea. Neat stuff. There are only a very few places where this sinking occurs in the ocean, and without it the climate of the world would be much different.
Re:drought? (Score:2, Informative)
Did you do any research on air currents [mit.edu]?
Is the Gulf Stream responsible for Europe's mild winters? [nyud.net]
Europe is warm because of southwesterly winds from the warm Atlantic. These winds are caused by the Rocky Mountains, which divert warm air flow to the southern U.S. and the air then flows northeast toward Europe. Cold polar air also tends to spill south across ce
Re:drought? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:drought? (Score:2)
Re:drought? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:drought? (Score:2)
Re:drought? (Score:2)
how about we do something about it so survival isn't a question?
Sure, it's naturally occuring. So is a comet, but if one was going to hit the planet, I sure as hell would like to do somethig about it.
Re:drought? (Score:2, Funny)
Lisa: Yes, but the records only go back to 1978 when the Hall of Records was mysteriously blown away.
Re:drought? (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes. For there is no physical fact known to absolute certainty. None. Not one. Absolute truths are limited to geometry, mathamatics and logic. Gravity, speed of light, any idea based on measurements, all such ideas are are all subject to doubt. But I would not suggest jumping of any tall buildings. The odds are very very high that such a jumper would become a messy spot on the ground in just seconds.
Climate is a complex subject. Understanding it would be very unlikely to help you get an audition on the "O'Reilly" factor. It would be more likely to keep you off such shows. But if you did want to understand, here is the best overview I know of:
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/index.htm [grida.no]
About 100 years ago, the "liberals" would have been the ones arguing that all changes are gradual in response to conservative nut cases talking great floods and cataclysmic events. Today, the conservatives seem to shut their eyes to the possibility of catastrophic changes, and the liberals are more likely to be talking about catastrophic change.
The world is a lot stranger than "liberal" vs "conservative". While climate change will probably look sudden on a geological time scale, on a human scale it probably will not look catastrophic until it is catastrophic. Which is exactly too late. Isn't preventing change what "conservatives" try to do?
Re:Al Gore's book title is correct (Score:2)
No kidding! So it is a "fact" that human activity contributes nothing, in the long run, to global climate? And here I thought the jury was still out on how much we impact our climate and how long those effects will last. Silly me!
Seriously though, I really don't like this kind of unsubstantiated "it is a fact" statement about something we know so little about. I'm not sure how much human
Re:Al Gore's book title is correct (Score:2)
Environmental science in general and global warming in particular are among the topics that Slashdot simply seem incapable of producing *ANY* meaningful signal on whatsoever. The problem seems to be that most Slashdotters are aware of just how much their technological fetishes (which I admittedly share) are dependent on the very processes which drive environmentalists into f
Re:Al Gore's book title is correct (Score:3, Informative)
Purposely setting the US up as the fall guy on global warming may look pretty amazingly stupid in just a decade or two. All those WWII era Germans and Arab terrorists that are the stock embodiment of evil today? I'm not looking forward to it changing to a fat Am
Re:Al Gore's book title is correct (Score:2)
Re:Al Gore's book title is correct (Score:2)
...from which the 'industrialised world' is already a net importer of food...
Re:Al Gore's book title is correct (Score:2)
If you want to see an example of some smart, resourceful people dealing with the problem, instead of denying it, you need look no further than today's post on Iceland. They aren't as dumb and arrogant as you appear to be.
Re:Al Gore's book title is correct (Score:2)
Lets chalk that up to a failed attempt to catch your attention about what a runaway greenhouse effect [cwru.edu] looks like. You quickly forget I didn't say Earth "is turning in to another Venus". All I said is its one of the many possibilities and it is both the worst case and quite possible.
You see the problem with you and all those like you is there is NOTHING that will convince you that its possible human activity is having adverse effe
Re:Al Gore's book title is correct (Score:2)
No.
Yes, there is geothermal energy everywhere on the planet. Yes, we could tap it. But that's just falling back into
Re:Al Gore's book title is correct (Score:3, Interesting)
You also don't need anything close to that to devestate life on earth. If we push up the Earth's average temperature 10-20 degrees Fahrenheit that will be enough to cause a massive disruption in our climate and lives. 10 degrees is within the range currently estimated by the National Science Foundation [epa.gov] for the next 100 years especially if we make no attempt to check g
Re:Al Gore's book title is correct (Score:2)
"How are we going to generate enough electricity to power our vehicles, our homes, our entire way of life?"
Hello, Mr. Conservationist, one way is to just conserve some. Just boosting Miles Pe
Re:Al Gore's book title is correct (Score:3, Informative)
"Do you really believe a couple billion bags of cells with delusions of intelligence can change the weather of an entire planet?"
I think you don't have to look much further than the undisputed fact that those meat sacks nearly destroyed the ozone layer with aerosol cans and Freon. Not exactly weather but its pretty much the same concept, technology induced global calamity. If we hadn't taken measures to stop it, it would have also eventually wi
Re:Al Gore's book title is correct (Score:2)
What's worse its pretty obvious he is outright lieing half the time, like how he was sure there were WMD's in Iraq, and how big a threat Iraq was to the
Re:Al Gore's book title is correct (Score:2)
"And now we see what side of the political spectrum you sit on. Not that there was really any doubt. How much do you give to the Sea Shepherds every year?"
Not sure moderators need you to coach them especially since you dove for the cover of AC after your first post.
I had to break it to my post on the Bush administrations well known antipathy to scientists in the government highlighting the evidence supporting
Re:Balance? (Score:2)
The one before that was when the ancestors of the mammoth-hunters were still living in trees and flinging shit at one another as a way of saying "you're pissing me off"
* Okay, so maybe mammoth-hunting wasn't exactly common. Probably a group of hunters killed one once and spent the rest of their lives talking about it. They were
Not funny! (Score:2)
Re:drought dodger (Score:2)
Re:drought dodger (Score:2)
Re:Who cares?! (Score:2)
Re:Who cares?! (Score:2)
"Resources exist to be consumed, and consumed they will be - if not by this generation, then by some future. By what right does this forgotten future seek to deny us our birthright? Let us reach out and take what is ours, eat and drink our fill."
-- CEO Nwabudike Morgan
Re:Who cares?! (Score:2)
Thanks. Yup, apparently more widespread than I thought at first. I have long harboured a resentment towards older business people who have become very rich off the world's resources while being utterly disrespectful of the environment they take from. It is a true rape of the planet, and worse still, it leaves descendents to deal with the mess.
You can only consume so much, and expell so much trash (without repl
Re:Good news for republicans (Score:2, Insightful)
"Bad thing happens. Bitch about Republicans"
Interesting? It's not even boring anymore.
Re:Off Topic, go away. (Score:2)
That it borrows from paganism is not surprising at all. In many respects, this was done as a way to ease conversion. A great way to teach someone about something new is to relate it to something they already know.
The article you give is just one big assumption, and doesn't gi
Re:Read "State of Fear" (Score:3, Insightful)
Is the anti-Kyoto mob on Slashdot so desperate as to cite his latest as their scientific evidence?
Re:Read "State of Fear" (Score:2)
The book is also a good read (if a bit preachy), but it's conclusion is the most important thing about the book: the message that one must be skeptical, and that well meaning people can be knowing or unknowingly biased to support a scientific theory without much regard to its validity.
Re:It can only get worse (Score:2)
Re:It can only get worse (Score:2)
Just wait until the day after tomorrow [slashdot.org]. :)
oh thank (Score:2)
well done.
Re:Nuclear Power Now! (Score:2)
Also, there has been some very interesting developments in nuclear power in spite of ignotant hostile reaction to it. I can't imagine what we would have by now if we could research it in any reasonable way.
Re:Nuclear Power Now! (Score:3, Interesting)
Care to name some? France generates 3/4 of it's power with nuclear reactors and they don't seem to have any problems. Hell, in any power plant in the western world, you could have a Chernobyl-type meltdown and so what - it's called a containment dome.
"safety in the running of a plant"
You're exposed to more intense radiation in a fossil fuel plant or an airliner flight or during a sunbath than in a nuclear power plan