Slashdot Mirror
Climate Change Doubles Drought Stricken Area
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'."
from the dawn of time the climate has been changing! what makes them think it shouldn't now?
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 that have more water than they can deal with. Why, if you include all of the water that's been washed up on shore since, say, the day after Christmas, why you would say there's been much more flooding than droughting. (I am practicing for my audition on the O'Reilly factor).
If you look at all of this a hundred years from now, would you say that these so called drought areas are experiencing drought, or would you say that the great midwestern desert, the great indo-European desert and the great Amazon plains desert are just normal and the way its always been.
BTW, one odd change. 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.
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.
I was supprised that this article doesn't mention the effect of land use over climate change. One of the fastest ways the increase the local tempeture of an area is to cut down all the trees (raise by 2-3 degrees C). Remember over=grazing of the mid west led to the dust bowl during the great depression. Sadly a lot of developing nations use bad farming practaces, and that is why deserts are the only ecosystems still expanding today.
Ugh...global warming does not mean the earth temperature increases everywhere by the same amount. It changes weather patterns. Some places may get hotter, other colder. Some places may flood, others experience a drought.
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.
Is the anti-Kyoto mob on Slashdot so desperate as to cite his latest as their scientific evidence?
Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
> 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.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
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
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?
I saw another Discovery show that proved that global warming was a crock. That show also dispelled the myth of North American deforestation. It all made sense to me. There are lots of arugements from all different angles. Who really knows who is right. My mother gave me a book for X-mas by Michael Crichton called "State Of Fear" . I haven't had time to read it yet but my mother did over the holidays. She told me a little about it. In it she said Crichton dispelled the myths about global warming, deforestation, DDT, and much more. The book really interested her and she's pretty swift. It sounds like a book I'd recommend. Maybe I'll write a Slashdot review for it. Anyhow you might be interested in it. I can't vouch for what's in it yet but she did say he cited lots of sources. It's probably worth reading
Please check out this faq if you make claims about noisy and ambiguous data.
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 arguments that support it. If a paper is flawed or can be disproven, a scientist would jump at the chance to tear it to pieces. While it's true that climate scientist are focussed on global warming, I don't think they feel their jobs are dependent on it. It's more probably that Bush would rather fund any scientist that disproves global warming.
3. Sorry, but the measurements are quite conclusive. See link above. You just pull this out of your hat.
4. Global warming has a number of effects. Mainly higher temperatures and more precipitation, but it varies over countries and continents. If you think everything is contradicting itself, you just haven't studied it well.