Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Workweek Causes Climate Changes

Posted by CmdrTaco on from the everyone-take-the-week-off dept.

Shipud writes "An article in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences reports that daily temperature ranges are smaller on weekdays than on weekends. This phenomenon is strongest in the US, but also appears in China and Japan. The researchers attribute this to human activity, although the exact mechanism is unclear. The prime suspect is aerosol / cloud interactions. Here is the more legible version from Scientific American"

5 of 203 comments (clear)

  1. Welp.. people drive more during the week... by NivenHuH · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ... and that definitely contributes to more pollution being in the air which will definitely have an effect on temperatures.. I don't know what's being "discovered" here..

    --
    Just when you make it idiotproof, some idiot builds a better idiot.
    1. Re:Welp.. people drive more during the week... by SirSlud · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Lots of 'discoveries' should be read as 'confirmations'. You wouldn't want to build the foundation of science and technological progression on assumptions, would you?

      Mind you, of course that happens, but I always think this way when people say 'duh'. Remember, at some point, somebody would have said 'duh' had you concluded that the earth was the centre of the universe. ;)
      Garret

      --
      "Old man yells at systemd"
    2. Re:Welp.. people drive more during the week... by rrkap · · Score: 4, Insightful

      ... and that definitely contributes to more pollution being in the air which will definitely have an effect on temperatures.. I don't know what's being "discovered" here..

      Then you're remarkably uncurious or ignorant. What's the mechanism? Why is it different in coastal cities than inland ones? This is an interesting and localized (both in time and in space) effect of human activity. I don't really have a good guess as to what is causing it. You can't just say air pollution without examing the mechanism. It could be something really off the wall like change in averge absorptivity of the ground because all the parking lots are full.

      --
      I like my beverages with warning labels!
    3. Re:Welp.. people drive more during the week... by ctr2sprt · · Score: 3, Insightful
      It probably seems intuitive to you, and that's the problem. Lots of intuitive things just aren't true, because usually your guesses are based on incomplete or simply incorrect information. That's why it's important for scientists to prove their theories instead of just accepting them blindly.

      I, for one, find it encouraging that scientists are out there finding supporting evidence for the predominant theories. Contrary to what many Slashdot posters seem to think, our understanding of the global (and local!) environment is far from complete. It's even less of an exact science than psychiatry is. ("For some reason, doing this causes something to happen. We have no idea why, we're not entirely sure what happens, and sometimes something completely unexpected happens instead, but at least it gives us some measure of control.") That's why findings like this are important: it's predicted by an extremely shaky theory, so it's one more piece of evidence that our theory is right, and what we think is happening actually is.

  2. Good Science vs. Bad Science by __aagmrb7289 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Unlike most of the "it's obvious" responses I read through the thread on this article (followed by a simplistic explanation of a single cause, etc.), these researchers (and the publishers) did a great job carefully explaining how they did the testing, what their conclusions were, and why the conclusion was the only one possible. They did not attempt to tie in a bunch of agendas to their research, they merely stated the clear and definite tie between our actions and the temperature difference.

    Now, if only we here at /. can follow this example, and watch for this clarity in other "scientific studies" - if they aren't being this clear and precise, then they are pushing an agenda (and since that is such a simple conclusion, it's likely wrong (at least in some circumstances), but close enough...)