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: (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: (Score:1)
nothing good.
http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2002943714_asianair21m.html [seattletimes.com]
Re: (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 i
Re: (Score:2)
It's not often I find myself agreeing with an AC
Re: (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: (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: (Score:1, Insightful)
Bush. Its always his fault.
And personally i'm sick and tired of the 'blame America for the worlds woes'
Re: (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: (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: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (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 d
Re: (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: (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 mus
Re: (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: (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: (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: (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: (Score:2)
Re: (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: (Score:2)
Re: (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
Re: (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 ha
Re: (Score:3)
Newspeak?
Re: (Score:1)
obama campaign slogan
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (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: (Score:2)
Re: (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 thei
Re: (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: (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
Re: (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: (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 sel
Re: (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 bu
Re: (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 t
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (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: (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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (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: (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: (Score:3, Funny)
What could possibly go wrong?
I call B.S. (Score:1, Flamebait)
Coriolis effect. Next FUD!
Re: (Score:2)
Brownian motion!
Re: (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: (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: (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: (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
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: (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 via
Re: (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: (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 so
Re: (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
Re: (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; ou
Re: (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 int
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
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 s
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:1)
don't forget that the USA is also a communist dictatorship... just by a different name
Re: (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: (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: (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
Re: (Score:3)
carbon dioxide dissolved in water forms carbonic acid. Useful for respiration, but bad for the oceans (ocean acidification).
Re: (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: (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: (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: (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: (Score:2)
Re: (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: (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: (Score:1)
so what does that make "gold-diggers"?
Re: (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: (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: (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: (Score:2)
Re: (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 resourc
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
Re: (Score:2)
Thank you, Captain Obvious.
Re: (Score:1)