Slashdot Mirror
NASA: Increasing Carbon Emissions Risk Megadroughts
An anonymous reader writes: Droughts in the western U.S. have been bad recently, but not as bad as they could be. Researchers from NASA, Cornell, and Columbia are now warning that if we don't slow the rate at which we produce greenhouse gases, then we're dramatically increasing our odds of a drought that lasts upwards of three decades. "The scientists were interested in megadroughts that took place between 1100 and 1300 in North America. These medieval-period droughts, on a year-to-year basis, were no worse than droughts seen in the recent past. But they lasted, in some cases, 30 to 50 years. When these past megadroughts are compared side-by-side with computer model projections of the 21st century, both the moderate and business-as-usual emissions scenarios are drier, and the risk of droughts lasting 30 years or longer increases significantly."
NASA: Increasing climate change skepticism threatens our budget.
while those poor old dark ages folk didn't and look what happened to them! They burned and burned and burned and, so, history shows again and again how nature points out the folly of man.
So what was the excuse then? Were they pumping out lots of CO2 as well?
When these past megadroughts are compared side-by-side with computer model projections of the 21st century,
How about we fix the climate models before using them to predict things? If they can't predict things, they can't predict things.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Build some Mega Projects; Infrastructure, dams, reservoirs, pipelines, desalinization plants, etc. We know the problem is coming, plan for it, that is what government should do, not tell us to stop flushing the toilet.
Oh, wait, building stuff is so last century. It is so environmentally unfriendly to let people live in comfort.
This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
Right twice a day. Ain't dat a bitch!
And every one that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand:
But then Correlation vs Causation doesn't often exist. Since mankind was not causing mega-droughts in the 1100-1300 era, what leads us to think it is now carbon emissions causing droughts? Could it be other long term Solar variation & then seawater circulation issues that reappear regularly on long cycles.
Then when data appears to be tweaked in some field measurements or too sparse, it seems that unjustified claims are being made that can't be backed by solid science.
It's not necessarily less precipitation overall that will cause the megadroughts but higher temperatures that will cause the soil to dry our more than during past droughts. Also the precipitation patterns are trending toward more sudden big precipitation and less spread out in the past.
Climate change science is kind of like that. Something bad is happening, and it is causally linked to our exponential spread over the earth's crust. Current indications are that we are impacting weather patterns to our detriment.
You don't have to be thankful the work of your planet-saving scientists, but we'll not have a cross word from you neither.
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
Ernest Hemingway
We can desalinate, end of story.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
...in the absence of trees. We've removed half of them in the past 100 years. That's what's killing us here, we actually need the extra carbon or we'll starve, see the math here:
http://www.liebertpub.com/MCon...
Need Mercedes parts ?
Will someone explain to me what this troll post means? I can usually figure it out, but it seems like it's just tailor made to piss both sides off at the expense of reason or purpose. Bravo sir! Your post is truly a thing of savage beauty!
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
true story bro
I can see those endless lines of human sacrifices to appease the God so that He may give the people rain and fertile lands. This will continue for 15 years until there is nothing left but desert and the people either starve or evacuate, so ending their specific culture. The future archeologists can then dig up and marvel the remains of places of worship and grain storage facilities while pondering the irrationality of human condition. All of this has happened before and will happen again, again, again ...
Cons:
One more for this cartoon:
https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2015/02/failed-climate-predictions.jpg
I really think /. should put "Claim:" before these kinds of articles.
Ironically, the places with the least amount of natural water today will do just fine, because they're already investing heavily in desalination. Since they're already investing in that infrastructure, as their demand for water increases, they simply build more plants.
The places with abundant water and very little water end up fine, it's the places in the middle that will be screwed if they don't plan ahead.
It's definitely not falsifiable with the red herrings and ad hominems you're using.
But keep trying. Maybe you'll have a breakthrough.
From reading your comments since you created your Slashdot account a few weeks ago, I get the feeling that before we're done here, you're going to be calling climate scientists, "SJWs". That might help make you're point, or at least clarify for the rest of us how seriously we should take your comments.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Expect a deluge in the far west this spring. Climate science is a most hopelessly corrupt enterprise. Have these people no shame?
There are no words to adequately express how strongly I wish that you never in your lifetime have an opportunity to influence public policy.
..Mullah or Pope, Preacher or Poet, who was it wrote: "Give any one species too much rope and they'll fuck it up"?
Well, then, very clearly, we need to start giving government contracts to your brother in law's company which manufactures deep oceanic temperature sensors. You know, "just to be sure"...
if its colder than predicted - its weather
Because those are short term predictions made days ahead by weathermen. Weather is less predictable in the short term than climate in the long term. Over a longer term (meaning years, not days) temperatures haven't been "colder than predicted".
if its the same temp as predicted - it shows "the models are right"
So?
if its warmer than predicted - OMG global warming!!!!
14 of the 15 hottest years on record have been this century. (The exception was 1998, an El Nino year.) 15 years is a longer term than weathermen deal with.
People do seem to understand the difference between short term and long term phenomena if it's a stock price we're talking about. I don't hear people asking "if Apple stock is rising, then what about the high prices during 2012?" as if it was the medieval warming period. But if it's a planet's temperature- "la la la la, fingers in my ears, I can't hear you!"
No.
NASA GISS, NCAR, UEA, IPCC et al. have no, NO, evidence !
See, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uTmfwklFM-M
Q: Is the heat generated by society affecting the total heat in the biosphere? A: There is no way it could not be doing so, therefore, AGW.
Q: Is it possible to reverse this process? A: There is no current way to reverse this process, therefore the best we can possibly hope for is to slow the rate at which we descend into hell.
Did I miss anything? It seems fucking elementary to me...
Populus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur...
"Force shits upon Reason's back." - Poor Richard's Almanac
I'm not exactly sure what the scientists are recommending. Is "reducing carbon emissions" a code word for "killing everyone who isn't in a Western country?"
Not everyone has your ethics. This seems like a general problem, too many people who would rip others off take it for granted everyone is the same.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
Hippies with almost zero political power didn't kill nukes - bankers and insurance types with vast amounts of political power refused to finance nukes because it endangered their oil fuelled bottom line.
Step 1 - stop being naive and kicking harmless dogs instead knowing where the problem really lies. Step 2 - learn enough about the topic you like to be able to argue for it on it's own merits. Solar and wind don't even fill the same energy supply niche so should be irrelevant when you advocate nuclear power. Railing against them will just make you look ignorant.
NASA hasn't changed, it's still full of dedicated scientists.
Seriously guys, when even a site like this is arguing that NASA doesn't know shit then we've got a serious luddite problem. Maybe we've lost this generation to snake handling while speaking in tongues at one end and crystal energy naturopathic shit at the other so it could be time to either teach the kids more about reality or give up and start learning Mandarin.
Reading the posts here saddens me. All this hate on climate research telling that NASA is only interested in more funding (sound like MY TAX DOLLARS!!!!), or that man made climate change is a hoax comments, or the science was wrong in the past. This only tells me that all this poster do not understand science or don't want to understand science. And that a deep conservatism has hit the US. So while we try to change our impact on climate and in general on natural resources, you will continue to pollute the world. Too bad that we have to life on the same planet.
Seems like a climate model based on physics should say
If the planet is net warmer more water will evaporate making clouds.
These clouds will make rain.
Even with climate change, it will fall somewhere.
Perhaps, just not where we are use to.
So what does a 'drought' mean.
Worst case, it only rains on the ocean.
Nominal case, farm elsewhere.
Good case, not much change.
Best case, we like it better.
Which will happen?
These clowns have no clue.
But they are good an getting more funding.
Climate Change will lead to less snowfall....umm, never mind.
Climate Change will lead to more hurricanes....umm, never mind.
Climate Change will lead to more tornadoes....umm, never mind.
Climate Change will lead to ice free northwest passage....umm, never mind.
Climate Change will lead to 2-3 degree increase in the early 21s century....umm, never mind.
Climate Change will lead to (insert any other prediction here)....umm, never mind
Plants require carbon dioxide to grow.
Humans are 18% carbon by mass.
Glucose (the simplest sugar, and the basic chemical potential compound for all life on Earth) is 40% carbon by mass.
Carbon dioxide is about the furthest thing from toxic it is possible to get: in fact, I've just proven that as a building block it is ESSENTIAL for the continued survival of life on this planet that this compound is allowed to persist - ideally in larger amounts. Ever wonder why nursery gardeners burn wood in sealed greenhouses? It's to increase the amount of CO2 and encourage plant growth - not to heat the place. Plants are as sensitive to temperature change as we are.
Citation: BBC naturalist and climatologist of 38 years, David Bellamy OBE.
Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
climate change is happening, I won't dispute that, what I will dispute is the claim that human activity is to "blame". Solar and volcanic activity had more influence than we ever could short a few thousand nuclear groundbursts. Proof: the permafrost record.
Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
During the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum the global climate became wetter.
"The climate would also have become much wetter, with the increase in evaporation rates peaking in the tropics. Deuterium isotopes reveal that much more of this moisture was transported polewards than normal."
Not everyone has your ethics. This seems like a general problem, too many people who would rip others off take it for granted everyone is the same.
It's better than simply ignoring evidence of the unethical behavior in question via a dumb fallacy. For example:
According to Cook, the current likelihood of a megadrought, a drought lasting more than three decades, is 12 percent. If greenhouse gas emissions stop increasing in the mid-21st century, Cook and his colleagues project the likelihood of megadrought to reach more than 60 percent.
Where's the evidence for this assertion?
I thought they used to call it global warming, but then when it started getting colder they changed the name to climate change. They then started telling us we'd have record hurricanes, storms and tornadoes due to climate change, but quickly stopped talking about that one since we've seen record lows for both over the past few years.
Now we're going to have megadroughts. What the heck?
First the world is warming, now it's cooling so that it can warm up.
First we'll have tons of tornadoes and storm and hurricanes, but now we'll have megadroughts?
This is why people doubt these guys. They keep changing the story on everyone. Which one are we to believe?
Like "Between the NIMBYs and the environmentalist arseholes that want us all back in the dark ages" for instance? I can't get why you are so upset at a post that merely replies in your own style so as to aid in communication. If you don't want a blunt conversation I suggest not starting one.
Also if you do not wish to be treated as ignorant I suggest not dumbing down your posts to the extent where you appear to suggest that solar and wind are in the same low base load niche as nuclear.
I rewrote the last sentence which was initially about solar and wind having low capacities per unit and nuclear better at larger scales the "low" got left behind.
The whole wind versus nuclear debate is like having a blue versus curved debate - makes no sense due to different roles.
Yes I was far too rude in response to baggage from so many other clueless posters that also use the kick the harmless dog approach.
The nuclear "debate" starts off at such a childish and ignorant level by default so I over-reacted. It's funny how often I get labelled as an "environmentalist arsehole" by merely suggesting pilot plants of new reactor designs first instead of building 100 units as fast as possible, or the even worse approach of 1970s dinosaurs.
Well, on the FAT issue, every single scientist, nutritionist and radio and talk show host said the same thing. It was said so much, the fact was never properly disputed. Yet, when someone does and the proof is quite real, those same people have to take a different stance.
I'm not against studying this phenomena, and we should do so diligently, but I'm kind of tired of the scare factor that seems quite pathetic.
That's how real-world science works: scientists look mainly at proving theories that are appealing to the community and will preferentially publish when they find results that agree with what the community already assumes is true. Publication bias and other such errors are widespread in science and well-known and serious problems. I'm sorry that you are so unfamiliar with scientific research that you don't know about this.
Of course, it's wrong and unethical. And that's why people are upset about it when the results from such efforts are used to justify policy.
My sarcastic post didn't contain any ad hominems, but you nicely illustrate the ad hominem in your very next sentence.
Climate scientists are just regular scientists: slowly plodding along, making lots of errors along the way, and worrying about their careers. There is nothing wrong with that until politicians start taking last years published results and proposing massive crony capitalist programs based on it.
Having been on Slashdot for a long time, I know that Slashdot is a pretty diverse place. So, what "we" are you talking about? The small group of you and your dimwitted friends? Why would I care how seriously you take me?
If CO2 from human emissions will cause problems what was the cause of the 200+ year droughts in medieval times?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/08/18/spot-the-portion-of-drought-caused-by-climate-change/
It looks like a 600 year sine wave and we're done with the "wet" section so yes it will probably get drier but it has nothing to do with CO2 much less mankind's contribution.
A question for everyone who thinks that CO2 controls the climate. How long with rising CO2 and flat or falling temperatures before you admit your theory is wrong? 20 years? 30? Never?
All 5 of the major datasets (RSS, UAH, HadCRUT4, GISS, NCDC) show no warming for between 14 and almost 18 years. In that time CO2 has risen 8-10%.
It is based on models that are horribly inaccurate. If you want to read a great explanation of why the climate models are broken beyond belief there was a great article describing that and all the other problems with climate science by Dr Brown of Duke university
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/10/06/real-science-debates-are-not-rare/
How about we look at what happened last time the earth 'suffered' increased insolation? The Sahara was green. Offhand I can't find the research article I wanted, but turns out the Sahara greened up during every warm period. Anyway, a couple links as a starter kit:
http://knowledge.allianz.com/e...
http://news.nationalgeographic...
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
No.
Which is why the global average of the various "MWP"s is very much lower than the global average today.
As MBH 1998/1999 showed.
Why did you log out to respond to me?
You are welcome on my lawn.