Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

NASA: Increasing Carbon Emissions Risk Megadroughts

Posted by Soulskill on from the if-only-we-could-drink-oil dept.

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."

13 of 264 comments (clear)

  1. In other news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    NASA: Increasing climate change skepticism threatens our budget.

    1. Re:In other news by cheesybagel · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I watched the video. Pathetic. So there is no record of long droughts in the US. But it is going to get worse! I suggest you ask the Anasazi why they left their lands. Oh geez. A 300 year drought without any SUVs and with less population?

    2. Re:In other news by PopeRatzo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I don't remember a year as wet as this one in 30 years.

      Why you stupid sonofabitch. You think because there's been a lot of rain in your zip code that it has anything to do with global climate patterns? And not only that, but you're basing it on your memory of the last 30 years when you can't even remember the difference between weather and climate. How are you even able to turn your computer on in the morning?

      God damn, it's no wonder this country is in such decline. We have people who don't have the sense of a fucking housefly.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    3. Re:In other news by Sardaukar86 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      These AGW stories keep getting more pathetic as time goes by. I don't remember a year as wet as this one in 30 years.

      That seems.. a somewhat less scientific method of reaching a conclusion than the methods climatologists use to reach theirs.

      --
      ..Mullah or Pope, Preacher or Poet, who was it wrote: "Give any one species too much rope and they'll fuck it up"?
    4. Re:In other news by binarstu · · Score: 5, Insightful

      That's an appeal to authority argument PopeRatzo.

      Your parents should have read to you the fable of the Emperor's New Clothes.

      And your arguments seem to be based on appealing to yourself as an authority; e.g. your claim that you "know Earth history and geology well to know that AGW is bunk".

      I find PopeRatzo's appeal to legitimate expertise much more compelling.

    5. Re:In other news by Sardaukar86 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yes. Obscuring measurements by lying with statistics is more scientific.

      If you genuinely believe this whole AGW thing is a global conspiracy and that only enlightened ones who can see through the lies (such as yourself) can save us from the deception, then I'll make sure I never waste my time engaging you in conversation again.

      --
      ..Mullah or Pope, Preacher or Poet, who was it wrote: "Give any one species too much rope and they'll fuck it up"?
  2. Climate models by phantomfive · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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."
    1. Re:Climate models by MillionthMonkey · · Score: 4, Insightful

      How about we fix the climate models before using them to predict things?

      How about these guys take into account the rising temperatures in oceanic heat reservoirs instead of restricting their analysis to lagging indicators like air temperature?

      If they can't predict things, they can't predict things.

      Can't argue with logic.

    2. Re:Climate models by MillionthMonkey · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I learned this from the global warming skeptics:

      • 1. If it snows less than a weatherman predicts, it means climatologists are full of shit.
      • 2. If it snows more than a weatherman predicts, it means climatologists are full of shit.
      • 3. If it snows exactly as much as a weatherman predicts, invite him on your show as an expert to explain why climatologists are full of shit.
  3. We are an Impact Player in Earth's balance by rmdingler · · Score: 3, Insightful
    Everything develops by trial and error. You get something a little bit right and then fix the obvious errors. Then you get the product or process a little closer with each repetition of test and correct.

    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

    1. Re:We are an Impact Player in Earth's balance by PopeRatzo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Current indications are that we are impacting weather patterns to our detriment.

      You think the people commenting on this story on a Friday night are going to be swayed by science? Read the comments above. These are people watching Fox News with the sound off hoping that blond hoo-er reading the news re-crosses her legs.

      We got a guy up there who just stated that there can't be no damn droughts in the future because he doesn't remember there being so much rain in years. I'm not joking. He said that.

      You might as well be making the case to your cocker spaniel. You're just as likely to be understood.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
  4. Well, then, very clearly, ... by tlambert · · Score: 1, Insightful

    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"...

  5. Re:apples to oranges by ganjadude · · Score: 4, Insightful

    im not talking about scientists here, im talking about normal people and reporters.

    I saw on the news just yesterday that this cold in the north east "is a clear sign of climate change" meanwhile this happens every single year here

    as for your 15 warmest years on record, I take that with a grain of salt knowing that

    1 - the temps taken >100 years ago cannot be as reliable today

    2 - that the scientists have been adjusting numbers to fit models, rather than fixing models to fit the numbers

    3 - that we have better tech now to better record temps then we have in the past. so that .01-.03 difference that they claim (over the next 100 years) could simply be in the margins of error.

    --
    have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same