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."
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."
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?
Ahh no. [posts link to site funded by ALEC, Exxon Mobil, and Richard Mellon Scaife] But yes keep telling yourself that the warm periods weren't global and miraculously just materialized where people could record it.
Ahh no., I didn't just tell myself.
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
Actually 1100 years ago CO2 was pretty much at a high point for the last 1 million years at 280 ppm. During the cycle of glaciations/interglacials that have occurred on an ~100,000 year period for the last 800,000 years the peak CO2 level was 300 ppm or below and during the height of the glaciations it dropped into the 190 ppm range. At 400 ppm now it's higher than it's been in 4 or 5 million years if not longer, before anything resembling modern humans evolved.
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.
you're confused because this is a rare case of a reverse poe's law
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P...
rather than fundamentalism though, what is being misunderstood is the sarcasm
the troll is speaking sarcastically. his position is "like NASA knows shit, and we should all bow down before mighty NASA, what a joke"
but since the position he is speaking sarcastically about is extreme (that NASA doesn't have anything useful to say), he sounds genuinely earnest about not heeding NASA's warnings. he sounds earnest, by accident
so i guess a follow up observation to poe's law would be "a sarcastic troll is unintentionally useful and perceptive"
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
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.
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"?
Uh huh. Those damn NASA scientists trying to put one over on old cheesybagel, you betcha. And those other scientists from Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution who confirmed the findings, they're in on it, too. They'll have to get up pretty early in the morning if they want to fool an expert in "Earth history and geology" such as yourself.
You are welcome on my lawn.
im not talking about scientists here, im talking about normal people and reporters.
.01-.03 difference that they claim (over the next 100 years) could simply be in the margins of error.
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
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
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.
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"?
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?
+5 insightful? What is insightful about this?
The linked Wikipedia article mentions the supposed "300 year drought" in a single sentence that ends with... wait for it... "citation needed". Nice.
If you actually bother to read TFA, you will see that the entire point is that droughts in the near future are likely to be similar to those that occured around the time the Anasazi were abandoning their villages. The researchers never claim that "there is no record of long droughts in the US". Their conclusion is that there were long droughts in the past, and we are likely to soon see them again.
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.