Slashdot Mirror
Northern Hemisphere Pollution a Cause of '80s Africa Drought
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."
Ha! And you thought they were crazy when they bllamed the "White Man" for droughts in Africa.
more coal is burned in China than in the US.
Payback, that is, for all the hurricanes they send us every year. Suck on it, Africa.
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?
vos nescitis quicquam, nec cogitatis quia expedit nobis ut unus moriatur homo pro populo et non tota gens pereat.
Burn more coal in the southern hemisphere, and push the rain back north...
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
This 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.
Operation Guillotine is in effect.
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.)
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.
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?
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, and that is IF we don't use any more than we are using now but if you want us to switch to hybrids? Well all that power ain't coming from the electric fairy.
This is why the USA ain't gonna do shit, its because we CAN'T do shit thanks to the NIMBYs every damned where. the Greenies say "ZOMG coal is soooo bad, stop burning that!" and you say fine, we'll replace them with nuke, then the NIMBYs go "ZOMG 3 mile island you can't build that!" so you go fine, we'll build some dams "ZOMG you'll kill the fishies!" well wind it is "ZOMG you'll kill the birds and ruin the land with noise pollution!" and on and on AND ON, meanwhile in the time it takes to get a single reactor through all the NIMBY shit China will have 25 reactors online so they ain't gonna have to worry when the oil gets scarce, they'll have high speed rail and electric vehicles and they aren't gonna have to be burning coal either.
Lets face it folks, much as i love this country the Asians are out there getting shit done and all we seem to be producing is lawsuits and whiners! You're not gonna get shit done about global warming here and it won't take a conspiracy, the NIMBYs will make damned sure you ain't building shit here so we have no choice but keep the shit we have going no matter what.
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
This sort of confusion is what psuedo-skeptics are are taking advantage of when they claim an ice age was predicted in the 70's. Coal gives off (among other things), SO2, CO2 and soot. Sulfur causes cooling, acid rain, and deadly "pea soup fog", Soot causes warming, lowers albedo, and accelerates ice melt. CO2 causes warming and ocean acidification. Some of the soot and sulfur was cleaned up by various clean air acts in the 60's & 70's after the death toll from "pea soupers" in London and other European cities started getting difficult to ignore. Sulfur emissions (and acid rain) were dramatically 20 odd years ago when Regan instituted a cap and trade treaty on sulfur emissions, similar to those being proposed for CO2 (ironic, huh?).
Having said all that, climate scientists don't really talk about cooling or warming, they talk about +ve and -ve forcing and feedback, 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.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
You're not in a fascist state, and the boys'll be knocking on your door shortly to convince you of that.
Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'